The mother appealed from an order of the Supreme Court which granted her motion to modify the judgment of divorce to direct the father to contribute toward the subject child’s college expenses only to the extent of directing him to pay 20% of those expenses, up to an amount equivalent to that charged by SUNY Stony Brook. “Unlike the obligation to provide support for a child’s basic needs, ‘support for a child’s college education is not mandatory’ ”. Where a voluntary agreement is absent, it is within the court’s discretion pursuant to DRL § 240 (1-b) (c) (7), as to whether a parent is obligated to contribute to a child’s college education. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly considered all of the relevant factors, and providently exercised its discretion in limiting the father’s contribution to the subject child’s college expenses to what it would be if the subject child attended SUNY Stony Brook. Additionally, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in apportioning 20% of the subject child’s educational expenses to the father, and 80% to the mother. In reaching its determination, the Supreme Court found the father’s testimony to credible and found the mother’s testimony lacking in credibility. Silverstein v Silverstein, 107 AD3d779 (2d Dept 2013)