DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the financial information submitted by the defendant, including her W-2 statements for 1999, was sufficient to permit the Supreme Court to assess the parties' respective financial circumstances (cf., Mockler v. Mockler, 205 A.D.2d 510). Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly determined the defendant's motion for pendente lite relief without a hearing. The remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial (see, Hoenig v. Hoenig, 245 A.D.2d 262; Hudak v. Hudak, 222 A.D.2d 404).
The award of temporary maintenance to the defendant was a provident exercise of discretion, and the appellant failed to present sufficient evidence to support his contention that he is unable to meet his financial obligations (see, Piali v. Piali, 247 A.D.2d 455; Hoenig v. Hoenig, supra). Furthermore, the defendant provided sufficient documentation to support her request for interim counsel and expert fees. The award of such fees was a provident exercise of discretion considering the issues in the case and the parties' respective financial circumstances (see, Piali v. Piali, supra; Ahern v. Ahern, 94 A.D.2d 53; Domestic Relations Law § 237[a], [d]).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
O'BRIEN, J.P., FLORIO, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.