The plaintiff discontinued her portion of this matrimonial action seeking a divorce, and trial was held on defendant's counterclaim for divorce and on the economic issues. The divorce was granted on grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. (Domestic Relations Law § 170.) As stated in Hoffman v Hoffman ( 68 A.D.2d 806, 807): "On this record we are not prepared to hold [that] the [trial] court abused its discretion in granting the divorce". (See also, Stauble v Stauble, 72 A.D.2d 581.)
The several other contentions of plaintiff related to, inter alia, the duration of her maintenance, the immediate sale of the apartment, the alleged failure of the court to consider the tax consequences of such sale (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d] [10]), and the distribution of other marital property, are without merit. The court did not abuse its discretion in providing for the reasonable needs of the parties and awarding maintenance to provide an incentive for the spouse in need to become independent. (Gundlah v Gundlah, 116 A.D.2d 1026.)
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Carro, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.