Opinion
November 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The determination of the trial court as a fact-finder on the issue of cruel and inhuman treatment will not be lightly disturbed on appeal (see, Soto v Soto, 216 A.D.2d 455, citing Tortorello v Tortorello, 133 A.D.2d 683; Rieger v Rieger, 161 A.D.2d 227). Giving due deference to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, we are satisfied that the husband sufficiently demonstrated a course of conduct by the wife which so endangered his physical or mental well being as rendered it unsafe or improper for him to cohabit with her (see, Domestic Relations Law § 170). Further, the court's finding that the husband is entitled to a divorce on the ground of adultery is supported by the record and we decline to disturb it.
Contrary to the wife's contention, the court's distribution of the marital property is supported by the record. The court set forth all the facts it considered and the reasons for its determination (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5]; O'Brien v O'Brien, 66 N.Y.2d 576).
Additionally, it is well settled that the amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Feldman v Feldman, 194 A.D.2d 207, 217-218; Loeb v Loeb, 186 A.D.2d 174). In fixing the amount of such an award, a court must take into account the financial circumstances of both parties, including their reasonable needs and means (see, Feldman v Feldman, supra). Here, the evidence established that the wife was in good health, young, and educated. There was uncontradicted evidence that subsequent to the parties' separation, the wife withdrew close to $150,000 from a bank account held in the parties' joint names. Although the wife claimed to have expended these monies for living expenses, she was unable to substantiate in any real terms her use of these monies. The court did not credit her testimony and concluded that she had wastefully dissipated this asset or had hid these funds for her future use. The court properly fixed the award of maintenance.
We have examined the wife's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Ritter, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.