Opinion
May 6, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.).
Order entered February 28, 1984, affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
Temporary maintenance is designed to insure that the needy spouse is provided with sufficient funds to meet reasonable needs pending trial and a speedy trial is generally the best remedy for perceived inequities in such awards ( see, e.g., Rossman v Rossman, 91 A.D.2d 1036; Marcus v. Marcus, 91 A.D.2d 991; Jorgensen v. Jorgensen, 86 A.D.2d 861). On the record before us, consisting of conflicting affidavits, we perceive no reason to substitute our discretion for that of Special Term. It considered all the relevant factors ( see, Stern v. Stern, 106 A.D.2d 631; Belfiglio v. Belfiglio, 99 A.D.2d 462) and the award is not excessive ( Rossman v. Rossman, supra; Pieri v. Pieri, 91 A.D.2d 1016). Finally, plaintiff demonstrated the need for accounting services ( see, Ahern v. Ahern, 94 A.D.2d 53). Mollen, P.J., Titone, O'Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.