Opinion
June 28, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.).
The bulk of the marital assets was divided almost evenly by the IAS Court. Because defendant's behavior had a detrimental effect on plaintiff's legal practice, and because she tried to cause him physical harm, the plaintiff was awarded the entirety of his interest in the law firm in which he had been a partner, although the wife's interest in the entire marital estate was 45%, including the husband's interest in the law firm, as the IAS Court intended. Plaintiff's argument that he is entitled to a greater share of the marital assets is without merit, and we therefore decline to disturb the IAS Court's exercise of discretion (see, Pologe v. Goler, 194 A.D.2d 445, 446).
We have considered the plaintiff's remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.