Opinion
April 17, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaFauci, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In the present case, the trial court's award of maintenance to the defendant in the sum of $200 per week for a period of seven years was neither excessive, as claimed by the plaintiff, nor inadequate, as claimed by the defendant. In making the award, the court, inter alia, took into account the financial circumstances of both parties, including their reasonable needs and means (see, Raviv v Raviv, 153 A.D.2d 932, 934; Foy v Foy, 121 A.D.2d 501), as well as the plaintiff's present and anticipated income, the defendant's present and future earning capacity, and both parties' standard of living (see, Raviv v Raviv, supra; Delaney v Delaney, 111 A.D.2d 111). Moreover, the duration of the award was sufficient in length and designed "to render the recipient self-supporting" (De La Torre v De La Torre, 183 A.D.2d 744, 745).
We conclude that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ordering the defendant to pay child support of only $12.50 per child per week (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [g]), since requiring her to pay her pro rata share of the basic child support obligation would have been unjust and inappropriate under the circumstances of this case (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [f]).
Finally, because the joint record on appeal contains no information regarding the wife's request for counsel fees, this issue cannot be considered by this Court (see, Linda R. v Richard E., 162 A.D.2d 48, 56). Bracken, J.P., Pizzuto, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.