Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the fact that he is currently incarcerated and has insufficient income to meet the pendente lite maintenance obligation does not dictate a contrary conclusion ( see Matter of Grettler v Grettler, 12 AD3d 602, 603; Frasca v Frasca, 213 AD2d 589, 590; Romanous v Romanous, 181 AD2d 872, 873). Furthermore, although the Supreme Court should have set forth the factors considered and the reasons underlying its determination to award pendente lite relief ( see Zummo v Zummo, 237 AD2d 436; Fieland v Fieland, supra; Calicchia v Calicchia, 204 AD2d 506, 507), remittitur of this matter is not necessary since the Appellate Division's authority in this area is as broad as that of the Supreme Court ( see Byrne v Byrne, 240 AD2d 689, 689-690; Zummo v Zummo, supra; Fieland v Fieland, supra; Frankenbach v Frankenbach, 244 AD2d 524, 525; Weber v Weber, 186 AD2d 189, 190).

The Supreme Court, Kings County, should have set forth the factors it considered in reaching its determination with respect to temporary child support. Remittitur is not necessary, however, as the Appellate Division's authority in this area is as broad as that of the Supreme Court ( see, Zummo v. Zummo, 237 A.D.2d 436). It is well established that an appellate court should rarely modify a pendente lite award and then only under exigent circumstances, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations or justice otherwise requires ( see, Beige v Beige, 220 A.D.2d 636). The general rule is that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial ( see, Beige v. Beige, supra). Under the circumstances of this case, including the facts that the wife failed to make any showing that the childrens' needs were not being met ( see, Ragusa v. Capetola, 199 A.D.2d 311), and that the court ordered the defendant husband to pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities, and other carrying charges for the marital residence, we conclude that modification of the court's pendente lite order is not warranted ( see, O'Connor v. O'Connor, 207 A.D.2d 334).