Opinion
April 1, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Liebowitz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The court properly considered the issue of maintenance de novo since the prior judgment of separation between the parties was not conclusive with respect to fixation of maintenance in the divorce action (see, Kover v. Kover, 29 N.Y.2d 408, 414). The award of maintenance in the divorce action was made with due regard for the enumerated statutory factors (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]), and the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding nondurational maintenance (see, Petrie v. Petrie, 124 A.D.2d 449; Kerlinger v Kerlinger, 121 A.D.2d 691; Foy v. Foy, 121 A.D.2d 501). Moreover, the trial court, by giving due regard to the enumerated statutory factors (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d]), achieved a fair and equitable distribution of the marital property which was supported by the evidence and based upon sound reasoning (see, Arvantides v. Arvantides, 64 N.Y.2d 1033; Ierardi v. Ierardi, 151 A.D.2d 548). Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.