Opinion
June 28, 1994
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Bruce M. Kaplan, J.).
The Family Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding petitioner $7,600 in counsel fees since respondent, who has financial resources that are greatly in excess of those possessed by petitioner, was not inappropriately directed to pay the legal costs of the mother's underlying support petition. However, the court properly determined that he should not be held responsible for petitioner's repeated unnecessary motion practice. The court also did not abuse its discretion in vacating the Hearing Examiner's direction that respondent be compelled to maintain a $100,000 life insurance policy on behalf of the infant. There is no requirement for such a policy in Family Court Act § 413 (1), and petitioner has not offered any evidence as to the necessity for insurance in this particular situation. Finally, petitioner has not demonstrated any impropriety in the court's support or visitation provisions.
In view of the fact that the merits to respondent's objections to the Hearing Examiner's support order are currently pending before the Family Court, respondent's argument that the court was in error in finding his protest to be untimely is now moot.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach, Williams and Tom, JJ.