"Modifications of pendente lite maintenance and child support should rarely be made by an appellate court, and then only under exigent circumstances, such as when a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or when justice otherwise requires" ( Verderame v. Verderame, 247 A.D.2d 609; see Aliano v. Aliano, 285 A.D.2d 522). The husband did not demonstrate that the pendente lite award left him unable to meet his own financial obligations ( see Pezza v. Pezza, 300 A.D.2d 555; Grant v. Grant, 299 A.D.2d 521, 522; Aliano v. Aliano, supra). Any inequities perceived by the husband can best be remedied by a speedy trial ( see Verderame v. Verderame, supra; Weinberg v. Weinberg, 247 A.D.2d 535, 536; Shipman v. Shipman, 237 A.D.2d 426, 427; Pascale v. Pascale, 226 A.D.2d 439, 440). The husband's remaining contention is without merit.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The appropriate remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a prompt trial ( see Rizk v. Rizk, 254 A.D.2d 403, 404; Byrne v. Byrne, 240 A.D.2d 689; Shipman v. Shipman, 237 A.D.2d 426). The defendant wife established that she has only meager income and assets. She further submitted evidence indicating that the defendant husband has possession and control of substantial marital assets, the disposition of which he failed to adequately explain and substantiate.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The appropriate remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a prompt trial ( see, Byrne v. Byrne, 240 A.D.2d 689; Shipman v. Shipman, 237 A.D.2d 426). The plaintiff established that she has only meager income and assets. She further submitted documentary evidence indicating that the defendant had possession and control of substantial marital assets, the disposition of which he failed to adequately explain and substantiate.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. A modification of a pendente lite maintenance award should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations or when justice otherwise requires it ( see, Shipman v. Shipman, 237 A.D.2d 426; Gitter v. Gitter, 208 A.D.2d 895). Pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse ( see, Kesten v. Kesten, 234 A.D.2d 427), and the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial ( see, Beige v. Beige, 220 A.D.2d 636). The pendente lite award made by the Supreme Court is proper under the circumstances of this case and should not be disturbed on appeal. "The issue of counsel fees is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case, and the court must consider the relative merits of the parties' positions and their respective financial positions in determining whether an award is appropriate" ( Linda R. v. Richard E., 176 A.D.2d 312, 313-314).

The purpose of an award of pendente lite relief is to "`"tide over the more needy party, not to determine the correct ultimate distribution"'" ( Kesten v. Kesten, 234 A.D.2d 427; Roach v. Roach, 193 A.D.2d 660). Pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse, with due regard for the preseparation standard of living ( see, Kesten v. Kesten, supra; Byer v. Byer, 199 A.D.2d 298). Further, modifications of a pendente lite maintenance should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances, such as when a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or when justice otherwise requires ( see, Shipman v. Shipman, 237 A.D.2d 426). The general rule continues to be that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial ( see, Shipman v. Shipman, supra). Here, the wife's showing with respect to the marital lifestyle was such that, under the circumstances, there was a basis for the court to conclude that the husband's actual income and financial resources were greater than what he reported on his tax returns ( see, Kesten v. Kesten, supra; Felton v. Felton, 175 A.D.2d 794). The Supreme Court essentially found the husband's view of his finances to be "patently unbelievable" ( Felton v. Felton, supra, at 794) and was justified in imputing income to him which was "far higher" than that which he was willing to admit, and in making an award based upon the wife's "proof of her needs" ( Felton v. Felton, supra, at 794).