Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Modifications of pendente lite maintenance and child support awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances, such as when a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or when justice otherwise requires ( see, Beige v. Beige, 220 A.D.2d 636; Gitter v. Gitter, 208 A.D.2d 895). The general rule is that the proper remedy for any perceived inequity in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial ( see, Gianni v. Gianni, 172 A.D.2d 487). As this Court has repeatedly noted, pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse ( see, Polito v. Polito, 168 A.D.2d 440; Shapiro v. Shapiro, 163 A.D.2d 294). Based on these considerations, the pendente lite award of the Supreme Court was proper under the circumstances of this case and should not be disturbed.
The husband's remaining contentions lack merit.
Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.