Opinion
January 22, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.).
Ordered that the order dated November 4, 1988, is modified, as a matter of discretion, by increasing the award for temporary maintenance to the sum to $100 per week; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated January 26, 1989, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Bearing in mind that the granting of pendente lite relief in a matrimonial action is intended to "tide over the more needy party, not to determine the correct ultimate distribution" (Yecies v. Yecies, 108 A.D.2d 813, 814; see also, Isham v. Isham, 123 A.D.2d 742), the court's pendente lite award should be increased to the extent indicated. The record indicates that the defendant husband is carrying a number of costly expenses, e.g., a leased BMW and the car telephone, which it would seem the parties could ill afford at this time. The price of these amenities would best be reallocated to the family's living expenses.
In addition to the sums for temporary maintenance and child support, the defendant was also directed to pay all the carrying charges necessary for running the marital home. Thus, the total award, including the modest increase herein, should be sufficient in view of the parties' financial circumstances. In any event, the most effective remedy for any alleged inequities in an award of pendente lite maintenance and child support is a speedy trial at which time the parties' finances can be fully explored (see, Samuelsen v. Samuelsen, 124 A.D.2d 650; Perelman v. Perelman, 110 A.D.2d 629). In this regard, we note that the court set an early date for trial.
For similar reasons, the court's award of $650 as and for interim expert fees was not improper under all of the circumstances (see, Ahern v. Ahern, 94 A.D.2d 53; Gueli v. Gueli, 106 Misc.2d 877). Nor, in view of the early trial date, did the court err in referring the plaintiff's request for counsel fees to the trial court (see, Katz v. Katz, 111 A.D.2d 220).
Finally, we agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of establishing grounds for the disqualification of the defendant's attorney (see, S S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v. 777 S.H. Corp., 69 N.Y.2d 437; Plotkin v. Interco Dev. Corp., 137 A.D.2d 671). Thompson, J.P., Eiber, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.