Opinion
April 29, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements, the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth decretal paragraphs thereof are vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new determination with respect to the issues of child support, maintenance, and equitable distribution, in accordance herewith; and it is further,
Ordered that, in the interim, the former husband shall pay the former wife child support in the amount of $100 per week per child, to continue until each child reaches the age of 21 or until the Supreme Court's determination of the issue, whichever is sooner.
Virtually all of the economic aspects of the Supreme Court's judgment must be reversed and remitted for a new determination because the trial court failed to set forth any factual findings and calculations to support its award. For example, while the court awarded the wife the amount of $250,000 as her equitable share of the parties' marital property, the trial court failed to indicate which assets constituted marital property and failed to determine the parties' respective rights therein as required by Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d). Similarly, the court failed to determine whether and to what extent any appreciation in the value of any separate property of the parties is subject to equitable distribution ( see generally, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [3]; Hartog v. Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36; Price v. Price, 69 N.Y.2d 8). Furthermore, in making the distributive award, the trial court failed to "set forth the factors it considered and the reasons for its decision" as mandated by Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (g) ( see, e.g., Dalvi v. Dalvi, 214 A.D.2d 641).
The awards for child support and maintenance must likewise be reversed, inasmuch as the court made no specific findings regarding the actual or imputed income of the parties, failed to discuss the application of the appropriate child support guidelines ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 240; see generally, Matter of Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 649), and failed to set forth the factors upon which it relied in arriving at its determination as to maintenance ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [b]; see generally, Liadis v. Liadis, 207 A.D.2d 331; Hornbeck v. Hornbeck, 99 A.D.2d 851). However, we note in this regard that the trial court erred in directing the husband to continue child support beyond the 21st birthday of any child attending college ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [b] [2]; Bani-Esraili v. Lerman, 69 N.Y.2d 807; Vicinanzo v Vicinanzo, 193 A.D.2d 962), and in requiring the husband to contribute at least $5,000 toward any Bar Mitzvah party held for one of the parties' sons.
Since the foregoing matters must be remitted for a new determination, the parties may advance their contentions regarding the commencement date of child support and maintenance, the manner of enforcement of the judgment, the awarding of counsel fees, and the fixing of a schedule of visitation in the Supreme Court. Moreover, while we decline to consider the materials dehors the record submitted by the husband and the nonparty appellant, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, consider these submissions upon remittitur. Sullivan, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.