Opinion
June 4, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see, Schicchi v. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509); and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
Under the circumstances of this case, the court's equitable distribution of the marital property was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d] [11]; Ferdinando v. Ferdinando, 236 A.D.2d 585; Oster v. Goldberg, 226 A.D.2d 515; Anderson v. Anderson, 230 A.D.2d 813).
In light of the parties' relative financial circumstances, the equitable distribution awarded to the plaintiff, and the fact that she is relatively self-supporting, we conclude that it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny her request for maintenance (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; Vainchenker v. Vainchenker, 242 A.D.2d 620).
The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying counsel fees to the plaintiff (see, DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 881; Kret v. Kret, 222 A.D.2d 412).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.