The award appropriately reflects the parties' economic disparity, defendant's control over his receipt of income from a business in which he is the sole shareholder, the complexity of the litigation, and evidence of the nature and extent of the legal and appraisal services rendered, and is otherwise a proper exercise of discretion ( see DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881; O'Shea v. O'Shea, 93 NY2d 187, 190; Charpié v. Charpié, 271 AD2d 169, 171). The record does not support defendant's contention that plaintiff engaged in unnecessary litigation and obstructionist or dilatory tactics. The denial of plaintiff's request for an advance of $250,000 to secure future fees was properly based on a finding that no such security is needed. We note that plaintiff is free to seek additional interim fees ( see Frankel v. Frankel, 2 NY3d 601, 605 n 1 [2004]). We have considered the parties' other contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing.