| Geller v Geller |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00098 [69 AD3d 563] |
| January 5, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Rachel Geller, Appellant, v Martin Geller, Also Known asDavid Blass, Respondent. |
—[*1]
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief,from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sunshine, J.), datedJuly 1, 2008, which, upon a decision after trial of the same court dated March 3, 2008, madeafter a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarded her maintenance for a period of only nine years andfailed to direct the defendant to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy to secure his childsupport obligation.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise ofdiscretion, (1) by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff maintenance for a periodof nine years and substituting therefor a provision awarding the plaintiff maintenance for aperiod of 12 years, and (2) by adding thereto a provision directing the defendant to maintain alife insurance policy in the fixed amount of $200,000 with the subject child named as beneficiaryuntil the child reaches the age of 21 and the plaintiff as trustee until the child reaches the age of21; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.
Taking into account the plaintiff's age, the duration of the marriage, the plaintiff's limitededucation, the marital standard of living, and the plaintiff's health, an award of maintenance for aperiod of 12 years is appropriate (seeWasserman v Wasserman, 66 AD3d 880 [2009]; Brooks v Brooks, 55 AD3d 520 [2008]; Borra v Borra, 218AD2d 780 [1995]).
The plaintiff correctly contends that the Supreme Court erred in failing to direct thedefendant to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy to secure his child support obligation. Alife insurance policy in the fixed amount of $200,000 with the subject child as beneficiary andthe plaintiff as trustee until the child reaches the age of 21 will be sufficient (see Corless v Corless, 18 AD3d493 [2005]).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit. Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Lott andRoman, JJ., concur.