Opinion
August 19, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.).
Appeals from the orders dated March 28, 1984 and June 18, 1984 dismissed. The portions of those orders appealed from were superseded by the order dated August 6, 1984, made upon renewal and reargument.
Order dated August 6, 1984 affirmed, insofar as appealed from.
Plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
At issue on these appeals is whether the pendente lite awards at Special Term were excessive based upon defendant's income. We hold that they were proper. Contrary to defendant's assertions on appeal, there was not a paucity of documentary evidence concerning his net weekly income. The evidence proffered by the plaintiff upon the motion which resulted in the order dated June 18, 1984, consisting of the defendant's pay stub from the City of New York for the period ending April 28, 1984, fully supported Special Term's determination. That pay stub indicates that defendant earned a net weekly income of approximately $623 for the period from January 1, 1984 through April 28, 1984. The pendente lite awards did not become effective until February 9, 1984.
We decline to further reduce the wage deduction order granted to plaintiff on the record before us. We have repeatedly stated that the remedy for an award of temporary maintenance claimed to be unsatisfactory is a speedy trial at which a more detailed examination of the financial situation of the parties may be made ( see, e.g., Rossman v. Rossman, 91 A.D.2d 1036; Marcus v. Marcus, 91 A.D.2d 991; Jorgensen v. Jorgensen, 86 A.D.2d 861; Woram v Gilliam, 78 A.D.2d 796; Hyman v. Hyman, 56 A.D.2d 337, 338).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit ( see, Reingold v. Reingold, 102 A.D.2d 820). Lazer, J.P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.