DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.
It is well settled that the amount and duration of maintenance is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court ( see Murray v. Murray, 269 A.D.2d 433; Sperling v. Sperling, 165 A.D.2d 338). The court may order maintenance "as justice requires, considering, inter alia, the standard of living of the parties during the marriage, the income and property of the parties, the distribution of marital property, the duration of the marriage, the health of the parties, the present and future earning capacity of both parties, the ability of the party seeking maintenance to become self-supporting, and the reduced or lost lifetime earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance" ( Kret v. Kret, 222 A.D.2d 412; see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][6][a]; Mica v. Mica, 275 A.D.2d 765).
In this case, the trial court failed to fully consider the distribution of the parties' assets and their standard of living during the marriage and after separation in reaching its determination. Under the circumstances of this case, we remit the matter to Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial and determination.
ALTMAN, J.P., COZIER, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.