Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The equitable remedy of partition is not the absolute right of a cotenant in common (see, Ripp v Ripp, 38 A.D.2d 65, 68, affd 32 N.Y.2d 755). This Court has specifically recognized that with respect to a former marital residence, the "right to maintain an action for partition is subject to equitable considerations as between husband and wife" and, accordingly, partition may be precluded by the equities presented in a given case (see, Gasko v Del Ventura, 96 A.D.2d 896; see also, Bufogle v Greek, 152 A.D.2d 527). Since the parties' unemancipated son, who is under the age of 21 years, still resides in the subject residence, we conclude that at the present time the equities favor dismissal of the former husband's partition action (cf., Sherman v Sherman, 168 A.D.2d 550, 551). Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.