Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the facts, and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the fifth decretal paragraph thereof; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In the absence of "special circumstances", it is error for a court to direct a parent to pay for the college education of his child (see, e.g., Samuels v. Venegas, 126 A.D.2d 145, 151-152, lv dismissed 70 N.Y.2d 692; Hutter v. Hutter, 112 A.D.2d 543, 544; Connolly v. Connolly, 83 A.D.2d 136, 139-140; Kaplan v Wallshein, 57 A.D.2d 828, 829; Tannenbaum v. Tannenbaum, 50 A.D.2d 539, 540; Matter of Hawley v. Doucette, 43 A.D.2d 713, 714; see also, Hill v. Hill, 121 A.D.2d 270, 271; Valente v. Valente, 114 A.D.2d 951). We have considered those factors which, as outlined in the cases cited above, relate to the question whether "special circumstances" exist so as to warrant ordering a parent to pay for his children's college tuition. We note, primarily, that the defendant husband, whose regular child support payments currently consume approximately one half of his net earnings, cannot be considered financially well suited to meet the additional requirement that he pay for the college tuitions of four children. Considering this, among other relevant factors, we conclude that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in directing the defendant to pay for his children's college tuition.
We have examined the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.