Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent's contention that the Hearing Examiner abused his discretion in directing him to pay one half of the college expenses of his daughter, Pamela, in an amount "not to exceed $3,500.00 per year" lacks merit. A parent may bind himself or herself to pay college expenses by express agreement (Kuniholm v Kuniholm, 11 N.Y.2d 358; Matter of Vetrano v Calvey, 102 A.D.2d 932, 933; Matter of Buehler v Buehler, 73 A.D.2d 716). Here, respondent clearly agreed to share in the payment of his daughter's college expenses "to the extent [he is] able" (see, Curtis v Curtis, 132 A.D.2d 850, 854; Matter of Vetrano v Calvey, supra, at 933; Matter of Cooke v Pieters, 123 Misc.2d 351). In our view, the Hearing Examiner did not abuse his discretion in determining that both parties had the financial ability to pay one half of their daughter's college expenses, with respondent's maximum financial obligation limited to $3,500 per year.
Because she failed to cross-appeal from the order, petitioner's request for an order modifying the judgment of divorce to increase the amount of child support payments is not properly before us (see, Day v Day, 112 A.D.2d 972).