DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"Pendente lite awards should reflect an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse with due regard for the parties' preseparation standard of living" ( Campanaro v. Campanaro, 292 A.D.2d 330; see Landau v. Landau, 258 A.D.2d 508, 509). "An appellate court will rarely modify such an award, unless exigent circumstances exist, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her own financial obligations or justice otherwise requires" ( Taylor v. Taylor, 306 A.D.2d 401). The husband failed to adequately demonstrate that such circumstances exist and, therefore, modification of the award is unwarranted. "Rather, perceived inequities in pendente lite orders are best addressed via a speedy trial at which the parties' economic circumstances may be thoroughly explored" ( Campanaro v. Campanaro, supra at 331; Gorman v. Gorman, 286 A.D.2d 475, 476).
In light of, inter alia, the parties' disparate economic circumstances, the award of an interim counsel fee was also a provident exercise of discretion ( see Domestic Relations Law § 237[a]; O'Shea v. O'Shea, 93 N.Y.2d 187, 193; Shanon v. Patterson, 294 A.D.2d 485, 486).
SANTUCCI, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.