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 (see, Landau v. Landau, 258 A.D.2d 508, 509; Piali v. Piali, 247 A.D.2d 455, 456; Shapiro v. Shapiro, 163 A.D.2d 294, 296). Modifications of pendente lite awards should be sparingly made and then only under exigent circumstances such as where a party is unable to meet his or her own needs, or the interests of justice otherwise require relief (see, Einhart v. Einhart, 278 A.D.2d 360; Rich v. Rich, 259 A.D.2d 478). Rather, perceived inequities in pendente lite orders are best addressed via a speedy trial at which the parties' economic circumstances may be thoroughly explored (see, Gorman v. Gorman, 286 A.D.2d 475, 476; Menashi v. Menashi, 281 A.D.2d 522, 523; Rigaglia v. Rigaglia, 277 A.D.2d 216, 217).
In light of, inter alia, the parties' disparate economic circumstances, the award of pendente lite maintenance, expert accountant fees, and counsel fees was a provident exercise of discretion (see, Ferdinand v. Ferdinand, 289 A.D.2d 195 [2d Dept., Dec. 3, 2001]; Palamara v. Palamara, 279 A.D.2d 559; Landau v. Landau, supra, at 509).
S. MILLER, J.P., LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and CRANE, JJ., concur.