Opinion
August 1, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Loeb v. Loeb, 186 A.D.2d 174; Petrie v. Petrie, 124 A.D.2d 449). In fixing the amount of such an award, a court must take into account the financial circumstances of both parties including their reasonable needs and means (see, Feldman v. Feldman, 194 A.D.2d 207, 218). In addition, an award of maintenance is not determined by actual earnings but by earning capacity (see, Kay v. Kay, 37 N.Y.2d 632, 637; Powers v. Powers, 171 A.D.2d 737). Lifetime maintenance is appropriate when a spouse is incapable of future self-support, has clearly subordinated a career to act as a homemaker and parent, has no obvious skills or training, or is mentally or physically ill (see, Harmon v. Harmon, 173 A.D.2d 98).
Here, the evidence establishes that the wife did not work throughout the parties' marriage in order to care for the parties' child, that she has back problems, and that she has no skills or training. Hence, the trial court properly determined that she is entitled to permanent maintenance. Further, the evidence establishes that the husband has the ability to pay the present award.
In addition, since it is well settled that a proper award of child support is not necessarily based upon a parent's actual income but may be based upon his earning potential (see, Matter of Davis v. Davis, 197 A.D.2d 622; Tsoucalas v. Tsoucalas, 140 A.D.2d 333), the trial court's child support award is not unreasonable.
The trial court properly ordered that the maintenance and child support payments be retroactive to the date of service of the summons and complaint (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; [7] [a]). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Joy and Hart, JJ., concur.