Opinion
May 5, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter M. Schackman, J.).
In determining child support, the IAS court properly looked at the statutory factors under Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (f) rather than blindly applying the statutory formula to the parents' income over $80,000 (see, Harmon v. Harmon, 173 A.D.2d 98, 111). The award of maintenance was also based on a careful analysis of statutory factors in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6), correctly calculated, and appropriately limited to seven years on account of defendant's age, good health, and ability to become self-supporting, and her failure to show that she subordinated a career to act as homemaker, companion or parent (cf., Zelnik v. Zelnik, 169 A.D.2d 317, 333-334; Lolli-Ghetti v. Lolli-Ghetti, 165 A.D.2d 426, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 864). However, since the date set forth in the judgment for the commencement of maintenance payments differs from that set forth in the decision, the judgment should be corrected (CPLR 5019 [a]). Defendant cannot now modify the stipulation that she and her counsel subscribed to at trial based on an alleged miscalculation as to the credit extended to plaintiff (Blaustein v. Blaustein, 145 A.D.2d 591). Finally, in view of the financial circumstances of the parties, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to refuse defendant's request for attorneys' and accountants' fees (DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.