Opinion
November 6, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beerman, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff husband, the 50% owner of an apparently successful furniture business, asserts that his "salary" as "foreman" of that business will be exhausted by the temporary maintenance and child support awards made by Supreme Court, to which it adhered on reargument. However, while the contradictory affidavits shed little probative light on the total amount of the plaintiff's earnings, the family life-style and his present life-style indicate that his income is in excess of that alleged by him (see, Basch v Basch, 114 A.D.2d 829) and we discern no basis for substituting our discretion for that of the Supreme Court (see, Romanoff v Romanoff, 111 A.D.2d 158). Under the circumstances, the most effective remedy for resolution of the disputed issues of financial capacity and standard of living is a speedy trial (Basch v Basch, supra; Romanoff v Romanoff, supra). Kunzeman, J.P., Rubin, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.