Opinion
September 19, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff's contention that there was no evidence that he wasted an asset of the marriage, i.e. an apartment building, is without merit. The evidence adduced at trial was that the plaintiff collected rent from the tenants, made some repairs to the building, and gained access to electricity through one of his tenant's boxes. There was no evidence at all that the defendant participated in the management of the building. The building was sold at a loss and with more housing code violations at the time of sale than at the time it was purchased. Therefore, the Court had before it sufficient evidence to find that the plaintiff wasted the asset and to take this into consideration when making an equitable distribution of the parties' assets (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d] [11], Wilner v. Wilner, 192 A.D.2d 524).
We have examined the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Santucci and Friedmann, JJ., concur.