Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum:
The record supports Supreme Court's determination that the parties did not intend to abandon the separation agreement ( see, Lippman v. Lippman, 192 A.D.2d 1060, 1061; Zambito v. Zambito, 171 A.D.2d 918, 920, appeal dismissed 78 N.Y.2d 1125). Defendant's contention that the separation agreement is unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable has not been preserved for our review ( see, Lister Elec. v. Incorporated Vil. of Cedarhurst, 108 A.D.2d 731, 733) and, in any event, is lacking in merit ( see, Reader v. Reader, 236 A.D.2d 829). We agree with defendant, however, that both the child support provisions of the separation agreement and that part of the judgment incorporating those provisions fail to satisfy the requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (h) ( see, Zenz v. Zenz, 260 A.D.2d 474; see also, Matter of Michelle W. v. Forrest James P., 218 A.D.2d 175, 178). We therefore modify the judgment by vacating that part incorporating the child support provisions of the separation agreement, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine plaintiff's child support obligation in accordance with the Child Support Standards Act ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b]; Zenz v. Zenz, supra).