Opinion
April 9, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment (one paper) is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the wife's contentions, the award of spousal support in the amount of $60 per week does not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion. After considering all of the relevant factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a) in its oral findings (see, Roth v. Roth, 97 A.D.2d 967), the court determined that $60 was an appropriate award of spousal support. This determination rested within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Wilbur v. Wilbur, 130 A.D.2d 853), and should not be lightly disregarded (see, Krause v. Krause, 112 A.D.2d 862; Hage v. Hage, 112 A.D.2d 659; Stepakoff v. Stepakoff, 96 A.D.2d 1097; Forcucci v. Forcucci, 96 A.D.2d 751). On the facts of the instant case (see, Matter of Kronenberg v. Kronenberg, 101 A.D.2d 951), the parties' relatively similar financial circumstances as adjusted by the support award, indicates that this award was appropriate, as was the award of counsel fees to the wife (see, Bomser v. Bomser, 151 A.D.2d 538).
Finally, we note that the amount of support arrears allegedly owed the wife was determined during an in camera conference and is not part of the record. Accordingly, this issue may not be considered on appeal (Raso v. Raso, 129 A.D.2d 692). Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.