Opinion
October 7, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The parties were married on October 17, 1982, and had twin girls in 1986. At the time the children were born the plaintiff was earning a salary of $19,800, but she stopped working to take care of the twins, as the parties had agreed. The defendant earns a gross income of $38,000 from his work as an accountant with a potential to earn at least $15,600 more from the parties' business, The Twin Stop Deli, which was operated by the plaintiff but was awarded to the defendant in the judgment of divorce. Under the circumstances, we find that a maintenance award of $245 per week for four years is proper and adequate to provide the plaintiff an opportunity to obtain full-time employment once the parties' children go to school (see, Sperling v. Sperling, 165 A.D.2d 338; Parris v. Parris, 136 A.D.2d 685).
Considering all of the facts in this case including the plaintiff's financial contributions to the marriage during the first four years when she worked outside the home as well as her contributions as a spouse, homemaker and parent, we find no reason to disturb the court's determination that the parties be considered equal in their economic contributions to the marriage. The court's decision to divide the marital assets in as equal a manner as possible did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Cusimano v. Cusimano, 149 A.D.2d 397; Thomas v Thomas, 145 A.D.2d 477).
Furthermore, the court properly awarded the plaintiff exclusive occupancy of the parties' home. Courts favor allowing the custodial parent to remain in the marital residence at least until the youngest child reaches the age of 18 years or is sooner emancipated (see, Cusimano v. Cusimano, supra; Cassano v Cassano, 111 A.D.2d 208). The record establishes that suitable comparable housing in the same area cannot be obtained at a lesser cost than the plaintiff is now incurring by remaining in the marital residence (see, Cassano v. Cassano, supra; Hillman v Hillman, 109 A.D.2d 777) and there is no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff is financially incapable of maintaining the marital residence (see, Behrens v. Behrens, 143 A.D.2d 617) or that either party is in immediate need of his or her share of the proceeds of a sale of that residence (cf., Parris v. Parris, supra).
It is well established that the courts of this State will not permit a parent to relocate to a distant domicile which would effectively deprive the noncustodial parent of regular access to his or her children absent a showing of exceptional circumstances (see, Coniglio v. Coniglio, 170 A.D.2d 477; Meier v. Meier, 156 A.D.2d 348). Although the predominant concern is the best interests of the child, the resolution of such disputes requires a careful balancing of the rights and problems of both the child and the parents (see, Coniglio v. Coniglio, supra). In the case at bar, the plaintiff has not sustained her burden of showing that a move to Florida is required by compelling financial, educational, employment or health considerations (see, Daghir v. Daghir, 56 N.Y.2d 938; Weiss v. Weiss, 52 N.Y.2d 170; Hemphill v. Hemphill, 169 A.D.2d 29). Such a move would only deprive the defendant of reasonable access to his children and would effectively curtail his visitation rights, thereby depriving the children of the benefits of a regular and continuing paternal relationship (see, Kuzmicki v. Kuzmicki, 171 A.D.2d 843; Coniglio v. Coniglio, supra).
Under the circumstances of the case, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying an award of counsel fees to the plaintiff (see, Maloney v. Maloney, 137 A.D.2d 666). Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Miller and Copertino, JJ., concur.