Opinion
June 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.).
There was no evidence as to the academic abilities of the parties' 13- and 11-year-old daughters, their interests, their likely choices and preferences as to a college education, the likely cost of a college education for them, and the like. Without such evidence, a directive that plaintiff pay for college is premature ( Gilkes v. Gilkes, 150 A.D.2d 200, 201; Matter of Whittaker v. Feldman, 113 A.D.2d 809, 811-812). As in Whittaker, defendant should have the opportunity to seek payments for college on a later motion for upward modification when the details identified in Gilkes and Whittaker, are available.
Otherwise, the trial court properly considered all pertinent factors, and made appropriate provisions for maintenance appropriately limited to the date on which the younger child reaches 21 ( see, Sementilli v. Sementilli, 102 A.D.2d 78, 91), for private religious grade school and high school, since religion has been an integral part of the family lifestyle ( see, Keehn v Keehn, 137 A.D.2d 493, 497-498), and for life insurance serving as "discretionary security-type financial protection" ( Hartog v Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36, 50). Plaintiff's own self-serving view of the evidence gives this Court no reason to disturb the IAS Court's exercise of discretion ( see, Kamen v. Kamen, 163 A.D.2d 58), or its fact determinations ( see, Pologe v. Goler, 194 A.D.2d 445, 446).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.