Opinion
June 24, 1993
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Ruth Jane Zuckerman, J.).
The Family Court did not abuse its discretion by declining to award support in addition to the amount of respondent's basic support obligation, as properly calculated pursuant to Family Court Act § 413(1)(c). The Hearing Examiner and the Family Court fully considered the appropriate factors and the relative incomes and living conditions of the parties, and there is no evidence that the amount awarded was unjust or inappropriate (see, Family Ct Act § 413[f]), or that it failed to meet the reasonable support requirements of the child (see, Reiss v Reiss, 170 A.D.2d 589, 591, lv dismissed 78 N.Y.2d 908, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 758). With respect to the issue of insurance on respondent's life (cf., Matter of Kathy G.J. v. Arnold D., 116 A.D.2d 247, 258-259), there is no precedent or statutory authority for such an award within the context of proceedings under article 5 of the Family Court Act (cf., Matter of Kathy G.J. v. Arnold D., 116 A.D.2d 247, 258-259, supra).
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Kupferman, Ross and Kassal, JJ.