Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting from the first decretal paragraph thereof the sums of $63,968.61 and $57,983.25 and substituting therefor the sums of $78,381.11 and $72,395.75, respectively, and (2) deleting from the second decretal paragraph thereof the sums of $26,160.83 and $142,927.33 and substituting therefor the sums of $11,748.33 and $157,339.83, respectively; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The court erred in failing to credit the defendant in the amount of $14,412.50, as directed in its prior order dated February 3, 1995 (see, Glynwill Invs. v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, 216 A.D.2d 78). However, the defendant is not entitled to a downward modification of her child support obligations simply because she has assumed her share of the child's college expenses. The stipulation entered into by the parties in open court, and incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce, expressly required the defendant to assume these expenses, and does not call for a reduction in her child support obligations as a consequence (see generally, Sontag v. Sontag, 114 A.D.2d 892, 893).
O'Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.