Opinion
May 1, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The husband contends that the court erred in awarding maintenance to the wife, who was 54 years old at the time of trial in 1992, for a period of time that would expire, at the maximum, upon her reaching the age of 65. We disagree. The amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Loeb v Loeb, 186 A.D.2d 174; Petrie v Petrie, 124 A.D.2d 449). The Court of Appeals has recently stated that the trial court must "consider the payee spouse's reasonable needs and predivorce standard of living in the context of the other enumerated statutory factors, and then, in [its] discretion, fashion a fair and equitable maintenance award accordingly (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a] [1]-[11])" (Hartog v Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36, 52).
The evidence supports the court's finding that there was a great disparity between the husband's and the wife's income and that the husband's income was significantly supplemented by his parents. The wife's age, limited education, and limited skills further justify the amount and duration of maintenance (see also, Behan v Behan, 163 A.D.2d 505; Anglin v Anglin, 148 A.D.2d 833).
The evidence also supports the court's finding that approximately $40,000 was given by the husband's parents as a gift to both parties and not, as the husband asserts, as a gift solely for the use of the parties' two sons. The money was placed in a joint account in both parties' names when it easily could have been placed in existing trust accounts for the boys, and it was not disturbed until after the onset of marital difficulties when the husband removed the funds without the knowledge or consent of the wife. The husband's assertion that he utilized the money to pay for his sons' expenses was properly found to be disingenuous given the lack of evidence to support this assertion and the overwhelming evidence that the money was given to both parties in keeping with the generosity exhibited toward the parties by the husband's parents throughout their marriage. As such, the court properly found that the gift was a marital asset subject to equitable distribution (see, Ackley v Ackley, 100 A.D.2d 153). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.