Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff maintenance for a period of nine years and substituting therefor a provision awarding the plaintiff maintenance for a period of 12 years, and (2) by adding thereto a provision directing the defendant to maintain a life insurance policy in the fixed amount of $200,000 with the subject child named as beneficiary until the child reaches the age of 21 and the plaintiff as trustee until the child reaches the age of 21; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.
Taking into account the plaintiffs age, the duration of the marriage, the plaintiffs limited education, the marital standard of living, and the plaintiffs health, an award of maintenance for a period of 12 years is appropriate ( see Wasserman v Wasserman, 66 AD3d 880; Brooks v Brooks, 55 AD3d 520; Borra v Borra, 218 AD2d 780).
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).
The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit.