Opinion
May 31, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.).
Ordered that the order, as amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well settled that the focus of the court in fixing a temporary maintenance award is "to accommodate the reasonable needs of the spouse seeking support and the financial ability of the other spouse to meet those needs" (Rigberg v Rigberg, 124 A.D.2d 723, 724; see, Chosed v Chosed, 116 A.D.2d 690). Given the financial data and other evidence before the Supreme Court, we discern no error in its temporary maintenance award of $200 per week to the wife under the circumstances of this case. The husband is reminded that the best remedy for any perceived inequity in the temporary award is a prompt trial of the issues (see, Ross v Ross, 137 A.D.2d 800; Perelman v Perelman, 110 A.D.2d 629).
We have considered the husband's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.