Opinion
February 14, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
We do not find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in its distribution of the marital property. The distribution of marital property and the allocation of marital liability are necessarily part of an interrelated whole which must be addressed in a comprehensive decision. "Absent other circumstances not here present, the [appellant's] piecemeal attack on parts of the award, citing and analyzing only selected factors without a comprehensive showing of unfairness, fails to warrant the intervention of this Court's discretion" (Madori v Madori, 201 A.D.2d 859, 860).
Moreover, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding counsel fees to the respondent (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237; DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879; Matter of O'Neil v. O'Neil, 193 A.D.2d 16). Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.