Opinion
June 24, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.).
The record does not support the husband's claim that the motion court overlooked or misunderstood material facts resulting in an order that prevents him from meeting his own financial obligations. In fact, various overestimations by the husband and tax deductions available to him indicate that his net income is greater than that estimated by the court. The husband's remedy for any perceived inequities in this temporary order is a prompt trial ( see, Albanese v. Albanese, 234 A.D.2d 489).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Williams and Tom, JJ.