Opinion
June 5, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Hickman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the court's equitable distribution of the marital property was not in accordance with Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5). The court set forth all the factors it considered and the reason for its determination (see, O'Brien v. O'Brien, 66 N.Y.2d 576, on remand 120 A.D.2d 656) which was fully supported by the record. The plaintiff, who is custodial parent of 3 of the parties' 4 children, was properly awarded title to the marital residence as part of her equitable distribution award (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d] [3]).
Furthermore, the award to the plaintiff of $10,000 of the $40,000 in counsel fees which she incurred was appropriate because at least that much of the fees was occasioned by the defendant's failure to comply with and his repeated attempts to modify a pendente lite support order (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Rados v. Rados, 133 A.D.2d 536; Davis v. Davis, 128 A.D.2d 470).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.