Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant to terminate the unallocated child support and maintenance he was paying pursuant to an oral stipulation incorporated in the parties' judgment of divorce. Defendant ceased making payments when the parties' youngest child became emancipated in 1993, and then sought termination of those payments based upon a change in circumstances. Where, as here, an agreement provides for unallocated support, the payments may be reduced or terminated only upon conditions expressed in the agreement ( see, Sherman v Sherman, 168 A.D.2d 550, lv dismissed 78 N.Y.2d 1007; Surlak v Surlak, 95 A.D.2d 371, 375-376; see also, Simons v Simons, 139 A.D.2d 959). Neither the stipulation nor the judgment states conditions upon which support will cease, and a provision that payments will terminate upon emancipation of the children "should not be implied or deemed to exist" ( Surlak v Surlak, supra, at 376).
We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in determining the amount of attorney's fees to which plaintiff was entitled without first conducting a hearing, as requested by defendant, to determine the reasonable value and nature of the services rendered ( see, Matter of Tripi v Faiello, 195 A.D.2d 958, lv dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 803; Kish v Kish [appeal No. 1], 175 A.D.2d 604; Price v Price, 113 A.D.2d 299, affd 69 N.Y.2d 8). We modify the order on appeal, therefore, by vacating the amount of attorney's fees awarded to plaintiff, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing on that issue.