Opinion
December 19, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.).
While the penthouse portion of the matrimonial apartment was defendant's separate property (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d]), the court properly awarded plaintiff 50% of its appreciation on the basis of her direct efforts and indirect contributions as spouse, homemaker and caretaker of the children ( see, Price v Price, 69 N.Y.2d 8; Hartog v Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36, 46).
The court also properly utilized the death benefit fiction in valuing defendant's partnership interest in his law firm ( see, Harmon v Harmon, 173 A.D.2d 98) and properly valued and distributed to plaintiff 50% of the appreciation of defendant's interest therein as marital property.
As there was no dispute that capital gains tax was payable on the sale of the parties' New Jersey property, the court erred in failing to divide such tax liability equally and charge plaintiff with half the capital gains tax, amounting to $61,775.50 ( see, Hartog v Hartog, supra, at 52).
The court properly accepted defendant's accountant's unrefuted evidence of the segregation of defendant's Special Account and the assets and investments acquired therefrom and thus properly deemed said monies to be separate property (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [4]). As defendant failed to provide a basis for calculation of possible capital calls attributable to the parties' marital tax shelter investments, the court properly refused to hold plaintiff responsible therefor ( see, Greenwald v Greenwald, 164 A.D.2d 706, 719-720, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 855).
The court set an appropriate sum as maintenance after considering the statutory factors (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]) and properly granted maintenance for a six-year period to enable plaintiff "'"a reasonable period of time * * * to * * * update [her] work skills and to enter the employment market with a view to becoming self-supporting"'" ( Harmon v Harmon, supra, at 109, quoting Sperling v Sperling, 165 A.D.2d 338, 343, quoting Neumark v Neumark, 120 A.D.2d 502, 504). As the combined parental incomes exceeded $80,000, the court properly determined child support based on the children's "'actual reasonable needs'" ( Harmon v Harmon, supra, at 111; Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b]).
The judgment should have provided for interest from the date of the decision to the entry of judgment (CPLR 5002; see, Wallach v. Wallach, 204 A.D.2d 211, 212). We have considered the parties' remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.