Opinion
October 1, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
We discern no improvident exercise of discretion in the Supreme Court's disposition of the parties' respective pendente lite applications and find that "[d]ue consideration was given to the plaintiff's needs as well as the defendant's ability to provide for those needs" (Isham v. Isham, 123 A.D.2d 742; Chosed v Chosed, 116 A.D.2d 690; Van Ess v. Van Ess, 100 A.D.2d 848). Notably, the provisions of the Domestic Relations Law which pertain to pendente lite relief are merely intended to "tide over the more needy party, not to determine the correct ultimate distribution" (Yecies v. Yecies, 108 A.D.2d 813, 814).
The court's award of maintenance in the sum of $50 per week was appropriate in light of (1) the substantial individual assets possessed by the plaintiff, (2) her employment skills and ability to obtain work, (3) the defendant's ability to pay, and (4) the standard of living enjoyed by the parties during this brief marriage of only approximately nine months' duration (cf., Stewart v. Stewart, 96 A.D.2d 939).
We note in this respect that the court also ordered the defendant to pay all carrying and maintenance costs associated with the parties' Manhasset home, where the plaintiff is presently residing, and further ordered the defendant to maintain insurance for the plaintiff's benefit and to pay all of the plaintiff's reasonable medical, dental and prescription drug expenses. Although the defendant contends that he lacks the financial means to comply with the court's order, the record supports the Supreme Court's conclusion to the contrary. In any event, "the most effective remedy for resolution of the disputed issues of financial capacity and standard of living is a speedy trial" (Hrisikos v. Hrisikos, 155 A.D.2d 417; Caviolo v. Caviolo, 155 A.D.2d 410; see also, Marohn v. Marohn, 157 A.D.2d 771; Basch v Basch, 114 A.D.2d 829; Romanoff v. Romanoff, 111 A.D.2d 158). Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.