Opinion
May 18, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the plaintiff wife's contentions, the preclusion orders did not require the court to accept her expert's valuation of Tayar Painting Contracting. There is no uniform rule for fixing the value of a going business for equitable distribution purposes, and valuation is an exercise properly within the fact-finding power of the trial courts, guided by expert testimony ( see, Burns v. Burns, 84 N.Y.2d 369, 375; Dempster v. Dempster, 236 A.D.2d 582). The determination of a fact finder as to the value of a business, if it is within the range of the testimony presented, will not be disturbed on appeal where the valuation rested primarily on the credibility of expert witnesses and their valuation techniques ( see, Dempster v. Dempster, supra). Here, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in finding the valuation of the plaintiff wife's expert too speculative and in making its own determination instead.
The issue of counsel fees is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case, and the court must consider the relative merits of the parties' positions and their respective financial positions in determining whether an award is appropriate ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Linda R. v. Richard E., 176 A.D.2d 312, 313). Here, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in directing the husband to pay the wife a substantial part of her reasonable counsel fees ( see, DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
Santucci, J.P., Joy, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.