DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The award of maintenance is a matter for the sound discretion of the trial court ( see Mazzone v. Mazzone, 290 A.D.2d 495; Buchsbaum v. Buchsbaum, 292 A.D.2d 553; Murray v. Murray, 269 A.D.2d 433). In awarding maintenance, the Supreme Court properly considered the plaintiff wife's age and poor health, the duration of the marriage, and the plaintiff wife's lack of education or employment in finding that she was unlikely to become self-supporting ( see Summer v. Summer, 85 N.Y.2d 1014; Mazzone v. Mazzone, supra; Krutyansky v. Krutyansky, 289 A.D.2d 299, 300; Sass v. Sass, 276 A.D.2d 42, 49; Murray v. Murray, supra; Kaprelian v. Kaprelian, 236 A.D.2d 369, 371; Liadis v. Liadis, 207 A.D.2d 331). The award of $100 per week in nondurational maintenance was a provident exercise of discretion.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., FRIEDMANN, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.