DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated December 18, 2002, is dismissed, as the order was superseded by the order dated July 2, 2003, made upon reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated July 2, 2003, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
"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" ( Chauca v. Chauca, 5 A.D.3d 428; Verderame v. Verderame, 247 A.D.2d 609; see Aliano v. Aliano, 285 A.D.2d 522; Smitreski v. Smitreski, 251 A.D.2d 490). The husband did not demonstrate that the pendente lite award left him unable to meet his own financial obligations ( see Chauca v. Chauca, supra; Aliano v. Aliano, supra). The Supreme Court's assessment represents an adequate accommodation between the reasonable needs of both parties ( see Aliano v. Aliano, supra; Smitreski v. Smitreski, supra). Any inequities perceived by the husband can best be remedied by a speedy trial ( see Chauca v. Chauca, supra; Aliano v. Aliano, supra; Verderame v. Verderame, supra).
PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.