Opinion
April 25, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Willen, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court was not required to state the factors relied upon and reasons for denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate the award of temporary maintenance. Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (b) by its own terms, applies to "any decision made pursuant to this subdivision". The petitioner's motion was brought pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (9) (b), which permits modification of an order of maintenance "upon a showing of * * * a substantial change in circumstance, including financial hardship" and which contains no requirement that the court state the factors considered or its reasons for granting or denying such a request.
Furthermore, we find that under the circumstance of this case, the denial of the plaintiff's motion to vacate the award was not an abuse of discretion. On the record before us, consisting of conflicting affidavits concerning the parties' relative financial situations, we find no reason to substitute our discretion for that of the Supreme Court (see, Romanoff v. Romanoff, 111 A.D.2d 158, 159; Chyrywaty v. Chyrywaty, 102 A.D.2d 1009).
Finally, we urge the parties to take all the necessary steps to bring this matter to trial as soon as is practicable (see, Glass v. Glass, 138 A.D.2d 567). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.