Opinion
April 20, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cohen, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The trial court's determination that the plaintiff had failed to prove entitlement to a divorce on the ground of abandonment or constructive abandonment was based primarily upon its evaluation of the credibility of the respective parties and we see no reason to disturb that evaluation on appeal (see, Schine v Schine, 31 N.Y.2d 113, rearg denied 31 N.Y.2d 805; Casale v Casale, 111 A.D.2d 737, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 603; Infosino v Infosino, 109 A.D.2d 869). We also find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's awards of maintenance (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; Evangelista v Evangelista, 111 A.D.2d 904) and counsel fees (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237; Borakove v Borakove, 116 A.D.2d 683).
The plaintiff's arguments addressed to the alleged comments of the trial court at a Bench conference are dependent upon facts outside of the record and therefore cannot be considered by this court on appeal (see, Matter of Taylor v Board of Elections, 122 A.D.2d 910; Allstate Ins. Co. v Hertz Corp., 119 A.D.2d 612). Similarly, the alleged stipulation which the plaintiff contends was disregarded by the trial court was not in a signed writing or made in open court and thus does not afford a basis for reversal (see, CPLR 2104; Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 1).
We have considered the plaintiff's remaining arguments, including those made in his pro se supplemental brief, and have concluded that they are lacking in merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.