Opinion
November 4, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Miller, J.).
Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The most effective remedy for an inequity in an award of maintenance and child support pendente lite is a speedy trial where the disputed issues as to financial capacity and standard of living can be determined (Perelman v Perelman, 110 A.D.2d 629). We note that the defendant husband's net earnings as president of a wholesale jewelry firm cannot be ascertained from the record. The affidavits of both parties lack probative value as to the earnings of the husband, but the record before the court indicates that his income is in excess of that alleged by him.
Special Term was not required to consider all of the factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a) with respect to an application for temporary maintenance; the consideration of said factors is discretionary with the court (Stern v Stern, 106 A.D.2d 631). An award of pendente lite maintenance is appropriate where a party has demonstrated that there is an immediate need for support because there is insufficient property and income to provide for his or her reasonable needs (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]), and it does not appear that the trial of the action is imminent (see, Stern v Stern, supra). Special Term did not abuse its discretion in awarding counsel fees, because there was no demonstration that the wife had sufficient funds or income to pay for her own counsel (Ackerman v Ackerman, 96 A.D.2d 543). Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Thompson and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.