Opinion
March 28, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.).
Ordered that the appeals from the orders are dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the judgment as directed the husband to pay up to $16,000 per year for the college tuition of the parties' daughter Jodi, is dismissed as academic; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
The appeal from the intermediate orders 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 orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
The court's maintenance award of $350 a week to the wife was proper in view of the statutory factors to be considered in awarding maintenance (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; Sperling v. Sperling, 165 A.D.2d 338). It was also proper for the court to fix the duration of the award as the wife's lifetime. There is no dispute that the wife had spent the bulk of the marriage as a homemaker, raising the parties' four children. She thereby incurred a reduced earning capacity as a result of having foregone education, training, and career opportunities during the marriage (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a] [5]). Although the wife did work for four years (some of it part-time) as a bank teller, the evidence establishes that she was unable to continue in this employment because of a partial disability. Additionally, the wife has no technical or job skills, and no education beyond high school. In sum, the court's conclusion that the wife is unable to become self-supporting is appropriate.
At oral argument the parties agreed that the issue of their daughter's college education is academic. Accordingly, we dismiss so much of the husband's appeal as it relates to that issue.
The husband's remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.