Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The purpose of a pendente lite award is to "tide over the more needy party, not to determine the correct ultimate distribution" ( Iannone v Iannone, 31 AD3d 713, 714 [internal quotation marks omitted]; Jordan v Jordan, 2 AD3d 687, 688; see Swickle v Swickle, 47 AD3d 704; Horowitz v Horowitz, 237 AD2d 490; Roach v Roach, 193 AD2d 660). Moreover, "perceived inequities in pendente lite orders are best addressed via a speedy trial at which the parties' economic circumstances may be thoroughly explored" ( DeVerna v DeVerna, 4 AD3d 323, 324 [internal quotation marks omitted]; Campanaro v Campanaro, 292 AD2d 330, 331; see Gorman v Gorman, 286 AD2d 475, 476; Aliano v Aliano, 285 AD2d 522).

The defendant's contention that the pendente lite relief awarded to the plaintiff was excessive is without merit. 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). "Pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse, with due regard for the preseparation standard of living" ( Horowitz v. Horowitz, 237 A.D.2d 490, 491; Bernstein v. Bernstein, 213 A.D.2d 508). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court considered the appropriate factors in making its determination. ALTMAN, J.P., FLORIO, LUCIANO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.

In light of the fact that the husband was ordered to pay all of the carrying charges on the marital residence as well as other expenses, the court providently exercised its discretion in reducing the amount of temporary maintenance and child support. Moreover, the proper remedy for perceived inequities in a temporary award is to proceed to a speedy trial, where the financial circumstances of the parties can be fully explored (see, Eckstein v. Eckstein, 251 A.D.2d 537; Appold v. Savaglio, 249 A.D.2d 347; Horowitz v. Horowitz, 237 A.D.2d 490). RITTER, J.P., JOY, GOLDSTEIN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.

It is well settled that a pendente lite award should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse, and is to be determined with due regard for the preseparation standard of living ( see, Verderame v. Verderame, 247 A.D.2d 609; Young v. Young, 245 A.D.2d 560; Kesten v. Kesten, 234 A.D.2d 427). Here, under the downward modification order granted by the court, the wife was awarded reduced temporary maintenance and child support, and the husband was directed to continue to pay the carrying charges on the marital residence, including the mortgage, taxes, utilities, gardening, pool service, cable, and sanitation. Contrary to the wife's contentions, the reduced support and maintenance awards were sufficient to meet her reasonable needs and those of the children during the pendency of this action ( see, Horowitz v. Horowitz, 237 A.D.2d 490; Pascale v. Pascale, 226 A.D.2d 439). The wife's remaining contentions are without merit.

To the extent that the issues raised on appeal have not been rendered academic by subsequent proceedings, we decline to disturb the pendente lite award in this case. The proper remedy for perceived inequities in a temporary award is to proceed to a speedy trial, where the financial circumstances of the parties can be fully explored (see, Appold v. Savaglio, 249 A.D.2d 347; Horowitz v. Horowitz, 237 A.D.2d 490; Beige v. Beige, 220 A.D.2d 636). Under the circumstances of this case, including the husband's admitted income of $135,000, the temporary child support award of $450 per week for both of the parties' children was not improper.

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs. Contrary to the defendants contention, the Supreme Courts award of pendente lite support and maintenance to the plaintiff was proper under the circumstances of this case and should not be disturbed on appeal ( see, Wallach v. Wallach, 236 A.D.2d 604; Beige v. Beige, 220 A.D.2d 636). The maintenance payments were not "so prohibitive" as to prevent the defendant from meeting his own financial obligations ( Stanton v. Stanton, 211 A.D.2d 781, 782; see, Androvett v. Androvett, 172 A.D.2d 792). 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, Horowitz v. Horowitz, 237 A.D.2d 490; Berlly v. Berlly, 237 A.D.2d 553; Wallach v. Wallach, supra; Beige v. Beige, supra). The defendants remaining contentions are without merit.

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, quoting Yecies v. Yecies, 108 A.D.2d 813, 814). "[P]endente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse * * * with due regard for the preseparation standard of living" (Byer v. Byer, 199 A.D.2d 298). The remedy for a perceived inequity in a pendente lite order is a speedy trial where the financial circumstances of the parties can be fully explored (see, Terceira v. Terceira, 193 A.D.2d 729). In this case, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the wife interim counsel fees and expert fees (see, Horowitz v. Horowitz, 237 A.D.2d 490). The husband's remaining contentions are without merit.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. As has frequently been noted, any perceived inequities in a pendente lite award may best be remedied by a speedy trial, at which the financial circumstances of the parties can be fully explored ( see, Horowitz v. Horowitz, 237 A.D.2d 490; Campanella v. Campanella, 232 A.D.2d 598; Walker v. Walker, 227 A.D.2d 469). 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 ( see, Wallach v. Wallach, 236 A.D.2d 604; Beige v. Beige, 220 A.D.2d 636; Bagner v. Bagner, 207 A.D.2d 367). Such interim 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), with due regard for the parties' preseparation standard of living ( see, Salerno v. Salerno, 142 A.D.2d 670). The plaintiff's claim on appeal that the pendente lite maintenance award to the defendant constitutes a hardship in light of his limited income is belied by the record, which supports an inference that his income is considerably higher than represente