Opinion
March 10, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.).
We have considered the numerous issues raised by the parties and find that the only basis for modification of the judgment is the trial court's failure to make the awards of child support and maintenance retroactive to the date of the application therefor, as required by Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a); (7) (a) (see, Bonheur v Bonheur, 141 A.D.2d 489; Evangelista v Evangelista, 111 A.D.2d 904). As the record does not permit this court to make an independent determination of the retroactive amounts due, the matter is remanded for that purpose (see, Holcomb v Holcomb, 148 A.D.2d 915, 917). While neither party is pleased with the awards of maintenance and child support, the trial court gave proper consideration to the relevant factors and its conclusions are supported by the record.
We find no error with respect to the court's award of sole custody of the parties' child to plaintiff. The issue of plaintiff's fitness as a custodial parent was never raised during the trial, and the record contains abundant evidence of the parties' inability to agree on even the most minor decisions concerning the care of the child, let alone major decisions concerning his upbringing. In view of this history of rancor, joint custody would not be tenable (Trapp v Trapp, 136 A.D.2d 178).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.