Opinion
May 26, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Colby, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 19, 1990 is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated March 20, 1990, made upon renewal and reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated March 20, 1990, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the husband's motion to vacate the judgment is granted to the extent that the third through seventh decretal paragraphs thereof are vacated; and it is further,
Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an inquest on the economic issues, including equitable distribution of property and child support.
As we have previously held, the court must set forth the statutory factors considered in distributing the parties' marital property (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d]) and in awarding child support (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [7] [a], [b]). Where, as here, the court fails to set forth such statutory factors, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court for a report on the factors considered in making the determination (see, Meisl v. Meisl, 153 A.D.2d 839; Otto v. Otto, 150 A.D.2d 57). In light of Justice Colby's retirement from the bench, we direct a new inquest on the economic issues, including the equitable distribution of marital property, child support, and the appointment of the wife as the receiver of the marital residence.
The husband should be permitted to fully participate in the inquest by presenting his own witnesses and evidence, and by cross-examining the wife's witnesses (see, Otto v. Otto, supra, at 69). Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.