Opinion
July 22, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is modified by adding a decretal paragraph thereto directing the plaintiff husband to maintain insurance on his life in the face amount of $1,000,000 with the defendant wife as named beneficiary, and to maintain a policy of medical insurance for the defendant wife until she obtains an employment related policy of her own; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
We find no error in the Supreme Court's determination that the plaintiff husband's interest in Glengariff Corporation, his deceased parents' nursing home business, was his separate property not subject to equitable distribution ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d]). Moreover, the defendant wife failed to meet her burden of showing that she contributed directly or indirectly to Glengariff so as to entitle her to share in any appreciation in its value ( see, Hartog v. Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36; Price v. Price, 69 N.Y.2d 8; O'Brien v. O'Brien, 66 N.Y.2d 576). The husband, however, by working as a consultant to Glengariff, learned the intricacies of the nursing home business which enabled him to develop his own facility, GlenHaven, which is clearly marital property ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c]). The court awarded 50% of GlenHaven to the wife. Therefore, there is no merit to her contention that her contributions as a homemaker and primary caretaker were not compensated pursuant to the economic partnership concept of marital property.
There is no uniform method of fixing the value of an ongoing business for equitable distribution purposes and valuation is properly within the fact-finding power of the trial court ( see, Amodio v. Amodio, 70 N.Y.2d 5; Rice v. Rice, 222 A.D.2d 493). We find no basis to disturb the court's valuation of GlenHaven. While the valuation is not any of those offered by the parties, it is nonetheless supported by the record ( see, Terico v Terico, 222 A.D.2d 219; see also, Cohn v. Cohn, 155 A.D.2d 412).
The wife was awarded lifetime maintenance of $2,000 per week for the first five years and $1,000 per week thereafter. In light of the duration of the award, the wife's substantial distributive award, her age and health, and her ability to be self-supporting, we decline to increase the amount of the maintenance to $150,000 per year. However, we agree with the wife's contention that the court should have directed the husband to maintain life insurance in her favor to secure his maintenance obligation ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [8] [a]; Hartog v. Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36, supra; Wilson v. Wilson, 203 A.D.2d 558; Nolfo v. Nolfo, 188 A.D.2d 451). We further direct that the husband provide and maintain a policy of health insurance for the wife until she obtains employment-related coverage of her own ( see, Guneratne v Guneratne, 214 A.D.2d 871; Mulcahy v. Mulcahy, 170 A.D.2d 587). These insurance obligations are in addition to and shall not be deducted from the maintenance obligation. The judgment is modified accordingly.
Under the circumstances of this case, the court properly directed that each party pay his or her own attorneys' and experts' fees ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; O'Brien v. O'Brien, supra).
The wife's remaining contentions are either academic or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Santucci, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.