Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Considering the relevant factors governing equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d]), including the disparity between the parties' respective incomes and education, the court properly declined to require the defendant to pay a share of the marital debt, which includes the outstanding balances on their joint credit cards (see, Prince v. Prince, 247 A.D.2d 457; Gelb v. Brown, 163 A.D.2d 189).
Furthermore, the court's award of maintenance in the sum of $125 per week for a two-and-one-half-year period adequately provides the defendant with an opportunity to complete her college degree and become self-supporting (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; Majauskas v. Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481; Granade-Bastuck v. Bastuck, 249 A.D.2d 444).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
Rosenblatt, J. P., O'Brien, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.