Order affirmed, with costs.
We reject the appellant's contention that the Family Court erred in fixing the amount of support. It is a firmly established principle that the parents of an unemancipated minor have a duty to support the child if they are financially capable of doing so (see, Family Ct Act § 413; Sementilli v. Sementilli, 102 A.D.2d 78; Matter of La Blanc v. La Blanc, 96 A.D.2d 670; Jeanne M. v. Richard G., 96 A.D.2d 549, appeal dismissed 61 N.Y.2d 637). In determining the proper amount of support, the court is to weigh the needs and interests of the child and the respective means and future earning capacities of the parties (see, Matter of Chenango County Support Collection Unit v. De Brie, 100 A.D.2d 687; Jeanne M. v. Richard G., supra). In this case, the record fully supports the court's factual findings concerning the appellant's present and future earning capacity, for he admitted that he expected to earn a substantial salary at his present job, and he further testified that in the five years prior to the support proceeding, his annual salary ranged from $25,000 to $50,000.
In determining support issues, the trial court has broad discretion in weighing the relative financial positions of the parties and in evaluating their testimony (see, Hendrey v Hendrey, 110 A.D.2d 753; Parry v. Parry, 93 A.D.2d 989), and its findings are entitled to great deference on appeal (see, Matter of La Blanc v. La Blanc, supra). Under the circumstances presented herein, we discern no basis for disturbing the award of $150 per week as the amount of the appellant's contribution toward the support of his three children (see, e.g., Baynon v Baynon, 111 A.D.2d 733; Conrad v. Lewis, 93 A.D.2d 974). We have considered the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.