Schultz v. Schultz
Opinion of the Court
In an action
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
We find no reason to disturb the trial court’s determination as to equitable distribution of the marital property (see Sebag v Sebag, 294 AD2d 560 [2002]; Oster v Goldberg, 226 AD2d 515 [1996]). Similarly, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the trial court providently exercised its discretion with respect thereto (see Chalif v Chalif, 298 AD2d 348 [2002]; Damato v Damato, 215 AD2d 348 [1995]).
The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., H. Miller, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.