Opinion
December 5, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Backal, J.).
We deem the appeal taken from the order to have been taken from the judgment (CPLR 5512 [a]; 5520 [c]; see, Furio v Palm Beach Club, 204 A.D.2d 1053; E.B.A. Wholesale Corp. v S.B. Mech. Corp., 127 A.D.2d 737). The court properly declined to apply the estimated sale price method of valuation to defendant's business where the bona fide nature of the sale was questionable ( cf., Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 126 A.D.2d 537, 539, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 601). While the court's valuation of the business is different from those offered by the parties, it is supported by the record ( see, Cohn v Cohn, 155 A.D.2d 412; Hillmann v Hillmann, 109 A.D.2d 777). The 50% share in the business given to plaintiff was equitable in view of her indirect contributions as a homemaker and parent ( see, Morton v Morton, 130 A.D.2d 558, 560), as well as the unpaid work she performed for the business. Indeed, the distribution, viewed as a whole, reflects the individual needs and circumstances of the parties and is otherwise equitable. We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.