Application of the statutory 17% figure for one child to a marital income of $300,000 was a proper exercise of discretion in determining basic child support, in view of, among other things, a total family income of $550,000 and the lavish standard of living that the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not ended (Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][f],[1],[3]). We note that the motion court did not intend that the basic support obligation include health care or special educational expenses, the referencethereto in the court's discussion explaining why it was applying the statutory percentage on income over $80,000 having been made only for the purpose of describing the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not ended. However, in view of plaintiff's own ample financial resources, the award of an unlimited obligation for all potential add-ons was improper, and we modify to limit such award as indicated above.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.