Needham v. Needham

—Judgment, Supreme

Assuming, as plaintiff claims, that most of the stock constituting the primary marital asset was obtained either prior to the marriage or by way of a gift, it remains that its increase in value was attributable to his efforts as a director of and consultant to the issuing company, and that defendant indirectly contributed to those efforts as a homemaker for plaintiff and caregiver for the children. Therefore, the increase in value of the stock, properly reckoned from 0 where plaintiff failed to offer any evidence of its value at the times of acquisition, constituted marital property subject to equitable distribution (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [3]; Price v Price, 69 NY2d 8 ). The valuation of plaintiff’s stock options, and the inclusion thereof in the distributive award to defendant, were proper exercises of discretion (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [4] [b], [5] [e]). Plaintiff shows no basis for disturbing the trial court’s custody arrangements or its imputation of income to the parties for the purpose of calculating child support, and does not present a sufficient record to review the award of counsel fees for his willful obstruction of discovery. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.