Ordered that the order dated July 1, 1997, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from that portion of the order dated September 8, 1997, which denied the cross motion for reargument is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument, and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated September 8, 1997, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
To the extent that the issues raised on appeal have not been rendered academic by subsequent proceedings, we decline to disturb the pendente lite award in this case. The proper remedy for perceived inequities in a temporary award is to proceed to a speedy trial, where the financial circumstances of the parties can be fully explored (see, Appold v. Savaglio, 249 A.D.2d 347; Horowitz v. Horowitz, 237 A.D.2d 490; Beige v. Beige, 220 A.D.2d 636).
Under the circumstances of this case, including the husband's admitted income of $135,000, the temporary child support award of $450 per week for both of the parties' children was not improper. We note that while a court may properly rely upon the Child Support Standards Act (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b]) for guidance in fixing pendente lite child, support, it is not required to apply those guidelines (see, Nordgren v. Nordgren, 237 A.D.2d 498; Stanton v. Stanton, 211 A.D.2d 781).
Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.