Opinion
January 23, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Modugno, J.H.O.).
Ordered that the appeal is held in abeyance, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for compliance with the provisions of Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (g); (7) (b).
After a hearing at which both sides presented evidence, the Judicial Hearing Officer determined, inter alia, that the marital residence and the funds in the defendant's individual account at a savings bank were marital property and were to be equally divided between the parties, and that the defendant's total child support obligation was to be reduced from $166 per week to $130 per week.
Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (g) requires that: "[i]n any decision made pursuant to this subdivision, the court shall set forth the factors it considered and the reasons for its decision and such may not be waived by either party or counsel". In the instant case, although the court stated that it had considered all of the factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d), it failed to set forth the factors it considered in determining the respective rights of the parties in their separate or marital property and the reasons for its decision as required. In addition, in determining that a reduction of child support was warranted, the court failed to set forth the factors it had considered under Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (7) (a) or to indicate the reasons for its decision on that issue (see, Chasnov v Chasnov, 131 A.D.2d 624; O'Brien v O'Brien, 120 A.D.2d 656; Dolan v Dolan, 101 A.D.2d 824; Paolini v Paolini, 99 A.D.2d 742).
Although this court has the authority to make the necessary determinations (see, Kobylack v Kobylack, 62 N.Y.2d 399, 403; Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481, 493-494), we decline to do so in this case. This matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for the purpose of making findings and "a detailed record of the court's reasoning" (Dolan v Dolan, supra, at 825), in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Domestic Relations Law. The appeal is held in abeyance pending receipt of the findings. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.