CASTALDO v. CASTALDO

ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court sufficiently set forth the relevant factors which it considered in awarding the defendant one-half of the parties' certificate of deposit and savings account, as required by Domestic Relations Law § 236-Dom. Rel.B(5)(d). The court was not required "to analyze each of the factors stated in subdivision (5)(d) and give reasons as to each" (O'Brien v. O'Brien, 66 N.Y.2d 576, 589; see, Cappiello v. Cappiello, 66 N.Y.2d 107).

Additionally, the Supreme Court properly determined not to award the plaintiff child support arrears. At trial, the plaintiff admitted that since the parties' separation, the defendant paid child support in the amount of $300 every two weeks. Since this amount exceeded the amount of child support awarded in the amended judgment, the defendant does not owe any child support arrears. Further, the issue of the Supreme Court's failure to specify in the amended judgment the amount of reasonable child care costs for which the defendant is responsible is academic in light of that court's order dated December 22, 2000, which, inter alia, did so.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

FRIEDMANN, J.P., SMITH, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.