Opinion
February 8, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.).
The award for maintenance should have been made retroactive to the date of the first application therefor (Sotiropoulos v Sotiropoulos, 181 A.D.2d 499). The amount of credit due plaintiff for past payments (see, Berge v. Berge, 159 A.D.2d 960, 961) cannot be determined on this record, particularly given the absence of a decision on defendant's 1991 motion to hold plaintiff in contempt for failure to make required interim payments, and we remand the matter for that purpose (see, Sotiropoulos v. Sotiropoulos, supra). Otherwise, we find no abuse of the court's discretion as to matters involving equitable distribution, the amount and duration of maintenance, child custody, the amount of child support, and the award of attorney fees. None of the arguments raised by either side "`is anything more than his [or her] view of the evidence, which gives this court no reason to disturb the trial court's exercise of its wide discretion'" (Kamen v. Kamen, 163 A.D.2d 58, 58-59, quoting Leider v. Otero-Leider, 161 A.D.2d 277, 278). We have considered the parties' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Asch and Nardelli, JJ. [The unpublished order of this Court entered herein on January 4, 1994, is hereby recalled and vacated.]