Opinion
Submitted December 1, 2000.
December 19, 2000.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated September 1, 1999, as granted the plaintiff's motion for pendente lite maintenance and support.
Certilman Balin Adler Hyman, East Meadow, N.Y. (Meredith W. Ayres of counsel), for appellant.
Karen G. Silverman, Huntington, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"Modifications of pendente lite awards 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 justice otherwise requires" (Beige v. Beige, 220 A.D.2d 636). Generally, the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see, Beige v. Beige, supra; Zeitlin v. Zeitlin, 209 A.D.2d 613). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record does not support his claim that the pendente lite award was so prohibitive as to prevent him from meeting his own financial obligations (see, Fried v. Fried, 225 A.D.2d 584; Zeitlin v. Zeitlin, supra). Accordingly, the defendant's remedy is a speedy trial where the financial circumstances of the parties can be fully explored.