DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the amended order dated January 19, 1999, is dismissed, as that order is superseded by the order dated February 2 6, 1999, made upon renewal and reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated February 26, 1999, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the plaintiff wife's contention, the parties' prenuptial agreement forecloses her from seeking any award of maintenance from the defendant husband, including maintenance pendente lite (see, Clanton v. Clanton, 189 A.D.2d 849, 850 ). The parties broadly and unequivocally agreed that in the event of separation, divorce, or annulment, "[n]either party shall have any rights to support, alimony or maintenance from the other". It is undisputed that the parties were separated. Moreover, there is no evidence to support the plaintiff's contention that the prenuptial agreement is unconscionable (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 Dom. Rel.[B][3]) or that she is "incapable of self-support and therefore is likely to become a public charge" if the agreement is enforced (see, General Obligations Law § 5-311).
Regarding the award of temporary child support, the purpose of a pendente lite award is to "tide over the more needy party, not to determine the correct ultimate distribution" (Yecies v. Yecies, 108 A.D.2d 813, 814 ). Moreover, any perceived inequities in a pendente lite award are best remedied by a speedy trial where the financial circumstances of the parties can be fully explored (see,Roach v. Roach, 193 A.D.2d 660 ). In any event, the Supreme Court properly considered the parties' relative financial status and the economic needs of their two children (see, Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, 227 A.D.2d 365 ).
The plaintiff wife's remaining contentions are without merit.