Geller v. Geller

Jan 5, 2010
Versions:69 A.D.3d 563
892 N.Y.2d 196

Taking into account the plaintiff‘s age, the duration of the marriage, the plaintiff‘s limited education, the marital standard of living, and the plaintiff‘s health, an award of maintenance for a period of 12 years is appropriate (see Wasserman v Wasserman, 66 AD3d 880 [2009]; Brooks v Brooks, 55 AD3d 520 [2008]; Borra v Borra, 218 AD2d 780 [1995]).

The plaintiff correctly contends that the Supreme Court erred in failing to direct the defendant to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy to secure his child support obligation. A life insurance policy in the fixed amount of $200,000 with the subject child as beneficiary and the plaintiff as trustee until the child reaches the age of 21 will be sufficient (see Corless v Corless, 18 AD3d 493 [2005]).

The plaintiff‘s remaining contention is without merit.

Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.