Judgment affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.
We would note that our affirmance is not intended to preclude the defendant husband, upon the emancipation of the parties' younger child, from applying, should he be so advised, for modification of the provision of the judgment of divorce awarding the plaintiff wife exclusive use, occupancy and possession of the marital residence, and for an order directing that said residence be sold, and the net proceeds divided between the parties on an equal basis, as provided in said judgment. In the event of such application, however, the plaintiff wife shall be similarly free to apply for modification of the provision of the judgment that the net proceeds of the sale be divided between the parties on an equal basis, and/or for upward modification of the award of maintenance, should that award, and her share of said proceeds, prove inadequate to enable her to obtain other comparable housing (cf. Corsentino v Corsentino, 67 A.D.2d 798; De Liso v De Liso, 65 A.D.2d 778; Sharer v Sharer, 60 A.D.2d 780; Scampoli v Scampoli, 54 A.D.2d 693). Titone, J.P., Gibbons, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.