Opinion
September 30, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Ontario County, Harvey, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiff met her burden of proving that she is unemployable and that she is entitled to continued maintenance. Under the terms of the parties' stipulation, incorporated in the divorce decree, the court's inquiry was limited to whether plaintiff met that burden. Thus, we reject defendant's contention that the court was required to apply the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (see, Consorti v. Consorti, 175 A.D.2d 940). The court properly directed defendant to continue providing plaintiff with health insurance coverage (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [8]) and to pay a portion of plaintiff's counsel and expert fees (see, McNenney v. McNenney, 159 A.D.2d 440; Scalchunes v. Scalchunes, 134 A.D.2d 337, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 808).