TAYLOR v. TAYLOR

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the husband's contention, the Supreme Court set forth in sufficient detail the factors it considered in making its pendente lite award. Generally, a speedy trial is the proper remedy for a perceived inequity in a pendente lite award (see Wallach v. Wallach, 236 A.D.2d 604). 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 (see Campanaro v. Campanaro, 292 A.D.2d 330; Menashi v. Menashi, 281 A.D.2d 522; Bagner v. Bagner, 207 A.D.2d 367, 368). The husband failed to establish that such circumstances exist and, therefore, modification of the award is not warranted.

RITTER, J.P., FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and TOWNES, JJ., concur.