Ordered that the appeal from the order dated February 7, 2005 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated July 21, 2005, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated July 21, 2005 is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which, upon reargument, adhered to so much of the prior determination as granted that branch of the mother's motion which was to direct the father to pay the college expenses of his daughter after she reached the age of 21, and substituting therefor provisions, upon reargument, vacating so much of the prior determination as granted that branch of the mother's motion which was to direct the father to pay the daughter's college expenses after she reached the age of 21, and denying that branch of the mother's motion; as so modified, the order dated July 21, 2005 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court erred in ordering the father to pay the college expenses of his daughter after she reached the age of 21 in the absence of a voluntary agreement to that effect ( see Matter of Cancilla v. Cancilla, 22 AD3d 490; Costello v. Costello, 304 AD2d 517).
However, the court properly ordered the father to pay the summer school expenses of his daughter incurred prior to her 21st birthday ( see generally, Skolnick v. Skolnick, 271 AD2d 431; Matter of Hartle v. Cobane, 228 AD2d 756).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.