MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Contrary to plaintiff's contention, Supreme Court properly awarded defendant maintenance in the amount of $100 per week for a period of five years. "The amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court" ( Francis v. Francis, 262 A.D.2d 1065, 1066). Here, the court determined that there was a significant disparity in the incomes of the parties and set forth the factors it considered in awarding maintenance ( cf. Hartnett v. Hartnett, 281 A.D.2d 900, 901). Although the court did not specifically address the parties' predivorce standard of living ( see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; Hartog v. Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36, 50-51), the record is sufficient for us to make the necessary findings ( see Ortiz v. Ortiz, 267 A.D.2d 991). The parties had recently purchased the marital residence, which they improved with a swimming pool and for which they had purchased new furniture. Plaintiff was awarded exclusive possession of the marital residence and, although defendant was awarded one half of the equity, that amount is not significant. At the time of the trial, defendant was residing with his mother in a two-bedroom house, and he testified that he intended to reside there for the immediate future because of financial constraints. We therefore conclude that the maintenance award is not an abuse of discretion. We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award plaintiff counsel fees ( see generally DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 881).