Opinion
October 31, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.).
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 when a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations or when justice otherwise requires it (see, Bagner v Bagner, 207 A.D.2d 367). Moreover, the general rule continues to be that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see, Gianni v. Gianni, 172 A.D.2d 487). As this Court has repeatedly noted, pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse (see, Polito v. Polito, 168 A.D.2d 440; Shapiro v. Shapiro, 163 A.D.2d 294), and they are to be determined with due regard for the preseparation standard of living (see, Salerno v. Salerno, 142 A.D.2d 670).
Based on an assessment of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that the pendente lite order of the Supreme Court is sufficient under the circumstances of this case and should not be disturbed on appeal. O'Brien, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.