Defendant seeks a downward modification of his child support obligations pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(9)(b). He has presented sufficient evidence, including unrefuted medical evidence, that he can no longer perform the intense work required of a law firm associate, to establish that his determination to pursue a career as a law school professor was the unanticipated consequence of medical problems incident to his former employment, warranting the requested reduction of his support obligations (Matter of Dupree v. Dupree, 62 N.Y.2d 1009; Matter of Beal v. Beal, 270 A.D.2d 256; Sullivan v. Sullivan, 242 A.D.2d 619; Rogers v. Rogers, 162 A.D.2d 1008; Conklin v. Conklin, 90 A.D.2d 817; Rotbert v. Rotbert, 47 A.D.2d 666). In this regard, defendant asserts that after making required maintenance and support payments, his current income would not leave him with adequate resources from which to pay reasonable living expenses (Hirschman v. Hirschman, 156 A.D.2d 644; Flanter v. Flanter, 123 A.D.2d 626; La Bate v. La Bate, 62 A.D.2d 1068) . However, we decline to reduce any arrears of child support which accrued prior to defendant's motion for a downward modification of his obligations (DRL § 236(B)(9)(b); see Conklin, supra at 818).
Accordingly, we remit the matter to the trial court to determine appropriate child support (DRL § 240 (1-b)), using the statutory formulae, or if necessary, explaining any deviation therefrom. Further, defendant's maintenance obligation terminated upon his ex-wife's remarriage (DRL § 248; Shattuck v. Shattuck, 255 A.D.2d 999; Grossman v. Merke-Grossman, 248 A.D.2d 670).
Appellant raises no challenge to the court's June 14, 2001 order, which denied defendant's motion to vacate an income execution, and he has not included the underlying motion papers within the record filed with this Court. Thus we dismiss the appeal from that order as abandoned (Dias v. Stahl, 256 A.D.2d 235; DiPasquale v. Sec. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 293 A.D.2d 394, 395). Finally, we find that an award of counsel fees was inappropriate in the circumstances (Conklin, supra).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.