Opinion
December 29, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs and disbursements.
Under the circumstances of this case, the provision of the order providing for sanctions if the defendant failed to comply with a prior court order did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion ( see, CPLR 3126; Hubbard v Hubbard, 113 Misc.2d 763; see also, Serdaroglu v Serdaroglu, 209 A.D.2d 606; Arnoff v Lorio, 208 A.D.2d 581; Kivo v Kivo, 193 A.D.2d 585; Adinolfi v Adinolfi, 168 A.D.2d 401).
In light of the parties' conflicting allegations relating to their respective financial conditions, it was also an appropriate exercise of discretion to refer all of the financial issues related to the carrying costs associated with certain marital real property to the trial court since a speedy trial will provide the best remedy ( see, Greenfield v Greenfield, 173 A.D.2d 592, 593; Coons v Coons, 161 A.D.2d 924; Carbone v Carbone, 119 A.D.2d 619, 620).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.