Opinion
October 19, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The appropriate remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a prompt trial ( see, Byrne v. Byrne, 240 A.D.2d 689; Shipman v. Shipman, 237 A.D.2d 426). The plaintiff established that she has only meager income and assets. She further submitted documentary evidence indicating that the defendant had possession and control of substantial marital assets, the disposition of which he failed to adequately explain and substantiate. Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, the challenged pendente lite order constitutes an appropriate accommodation between the reasonable needs of the plaintiff and the apparent financial ability of the defendant ( see, Shipman v. Shipman, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
O'Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.