
    Donna S. Friedman, Respondent, v Jeffrey L. Friedman, Appellant.
    [38 NYS3d 911]
   Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Edward A. Marón, J.), dated December 23, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a conference, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was to direct the defendant to pay his pro rata share of the college expenses for the parties’ eldest child and, inter alia, directed the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff the sum of $54,929 in college expenses she had paid.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In an order dated March 20, 2014, the Supreme Court denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was, in effect, to modify the parties’ stipulation of settlement so as to require the plaintiff to pay 100% of the college expenses of the parties’ eldest child above the amounts available in certain custodial accounts. The court also denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was, in the alternative, for a determination that his pro rata share of those expenses was 78% and the plaintiff’s pro rata share was 22%, and granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was, in effect, for a determination that the defendant was required to pay 100% of those expenses. The court set the matter down for a conference to determine, inter alia, the amount of the funds available in the subject custodial accounts. The defendant appealed from the order dated March 20, 2014 (see Friedman v Friedman, 143 AD3d 665 [2016] [decided herewith]).

After the conference, the Supreme Court issued an order dated December 23, 2014, which, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was to direct the defendant to pay his pro rata share of certain college expenses for the parties’ eldest child and, inter alia, directed the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff the sum of $54,929 in college expenses she had paid. The defendant appeals from stated portions of the order.

On this appeal from the order dated December 23, 2014, the defendant’s only contentions are that the Supreme Court erred when it denied those branches of his motion which were, in effect, to modify the parties’ stipulation of settlement so as to require the plaintiff to pay 100% of the subject college expenses, or, in the alternative, for a determination that his pro rata share of those expenses was 78% and the plaintiff’s pro rata share was 22%, and granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was, in effect, for a determination that the defendant’s pro rata share of those expenses was 100%. We reject those contentions, for the reasons stated in our decision and order on the appeal from the order dated March 20, 2014 (see Friedman v Friedman, 143 AD3d 665 [2016] [decided herewith]).

Accordingly, the order dated December 23, 2014 is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.  