Opinion
April 13, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.).
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A modification of a pendente lite maintenance award should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations or when justice otherwise requires it ( see, Shipman v. Shipman, 237 A.D.2d 426; Gitter v. Gitter, 208 A.D.2d 895). Pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse ( see, Kesten v. Kesten, 234 A.D.2d 427), and the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial ( see, Beige v. Beige, 220 A.D.2d 636). The pendente lite award made by the Supreme Court is proper under the circumstances of this case and should not be disturbed on appeal.
"The issue of counsel fees is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case, and the court must consider the relative merits of the parties' positions and their respective financial positions in determining whether an award is appropriate" ( Linda R. v. Richard E., 176 A.D.2d 312, 313-314). Under the circumstances of this case, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in requiring the defendant husband to pay certain counsel fees incurred by the plaintiff wife.
The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in requiring the husband to pay the costs of forensic evaluations.
Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.