Opinion
February 23, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the facts, by deleting from the 20th decretal paragraph the maintenance award of $500 per week and substituting therefor a maintenance award of $800 per week; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the wife one-third of the appreciation of the value during the marriage of the husband's closely-held corporation, Anorad, which was his separate property. The court properly considered, among other factors, the wife's direct and indirect contributions to the value of that property ( see, Price v. Price, 69 N.Y.2d 8; O'Brien v. O'Brien, 66 N.Y.2d 576). In addition, the court did not err in fixing the appreciated value of the corporation ( see, Amodio. v. Amodio, 70 N.Y.2d 5). Further, in light of, inter alia, the wife's educational and employment background and her age and good health, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in determining the duration of her maintenance award ( see Kret v. Kret, 222 A.D.2d 412; Wilson v. Wilson, 203 A.D.2d 558. However, the amount of the award was inadequate to the extent indicated herein. The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion or fail to apply the relevant statutory factors in setting the amount of child support ( see, Matter of Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 649; Straker v. Straker, 219 A.D.2d 707). Contrary to the wife's contention, the court did not err in determining that it would be premature to direct the husband to pay the college expenses of the parties' children, the eldest of which was 11 years old at the time of the trial ( see, LaBombardi v. LaBombardi, 220 A.D.2d 642; Friedman v. Friedman, 216 A.D.2d 204).
The wife's remaining contentions are without merit.
Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.