Heuer v. HeuerHeuer v. Heuer
Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Livingston County, for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: During this divorce proceeding, the parties entered into a written stipulation that the value of plaintiff’s interest in defendant’s dental practice was $29,750. For the first time on this appeal, plaintiff questions the validity of the stipulation because it was unfair and because neither the stipulation nor the final judgment included a valuation of defendant’s dental license (see, O’Brien v O’Brien,
We also observe that there is no factual basis in the record to support the award of child support and the trial court failed to set forth the factors it considered and the reasons for its decision as to child support and the distribution of a Keogh plan and individual retirement account (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [g]; [7] [b]). Therefore, we remit this matter to Supreme Court for additional proof as to child support and for the court’s elaboration of the factors it considered and the reasons for its decision as to child support and the distribution of a Keogh plan and individual retirement account (Patrizio v Patrizio,