Opinion
October 12, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Under the circumstances of this case, we agree with the trial court that the financial needs of the parties outweigh the wife's needs as custodial parent of exclusive possession of the marital residence (see, Behrens v. Behrens, 143 A.D.2d 617). Additionally, we agree with the trial court that the proceeds from the sale of the marital premises should be divided equally between the parties. Although the defendant testified that he contributed $9,600 of his own money towards the purchase of the premises, no clear proof was introduced to buttress this claim (see, Pullman v. Pullman, 176 A.D.2d 113; Verrilli v. Verrilli, 172 A.D.2d 990). In addition, the evidence clearly demonstrated that the plaintiff's nonmonetary contributions towards the marriage in caring for the parties' child were as significant as the defendant's monetary contributions (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d] [6]).
In reaching its determination on the parties' child support obligations, the trial court properly balanced the special needs of the parties' child against the needs of the defendant's other children in determining to apply the standard child support percentage of 17% of gross parental income (see, Domestic Relations Laws § 240 [1-b] [b] [3] [i]; [f] [2], [8]). Exceeding this percentage would have left the defendant with insufficient funds to meet his own needs and those of his other children (see, Hirschman v. Hirschman, 156 A.D.2d 644).
As the trial court noted, the reality of the plaintiff's situation is that she will be required to care for the child for the rest of her life. Under these circumstances, we find no impropriety in the court's having exercised its discretion in awarding permanent maintenance in the amount of $350 per week.
The trial court was not required to consider the tax consequences when it awarded the plaintiff one-half of the marital portion of the defendant's pension and stock plans because the defendant failed to present any evidence on the issue (see, Maloney v. Maloney, 137 A.D.2d 666; cf., De La Torre v. De La Torre, 183 A.D.2d 744).
We have examined the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.