Opinion
May 6, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The purpose of an award of pendente lite relief is to "`tide over the more needy party, not to determine the correct ultimate distribution'" ( Roach v. Roach, 193 A.D.2d 660; Yecies v. Yecies, 108 A.D.2d 813, 814). The court's award was not an improvident exercise of discretion since the record indicates that the court gave consideration to the respective parties' financial circumstances and the expenses and needs of the couple's children, specifically indicating that its order was based upon the exhibits submitted by the parties. Any perceived inequities in the pendente lite award may be best remedied by a speedy trial where the financial circumstances of the parties can be fully explored ( see, Roach v. Roach, supra, at 660; Samuelsen v Samuelsen, 124 A.D.2d 650, 651).
The court's directive that the defendant reduce his child support arrears at the rate of $275 per week is not unreasonable considering that the defendant had a continuing legal obligation to make child support payments. As a result of his failure to do so, the plaintiff has numerous overdue child care bills, which continue to build, as well as loans from friends which must be repaid.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.