Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Modifications of pendente lite maintenance and child support 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). 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). In determining the amount of support to be awarded, the trial court was not bound by the husband's tax return, but was free to find that his potential income from his family-owned business was higher than that which was reported ( see, Powers v. Powers, 171 A.D.2d 737). Based on these considerations, the pendente lite award was proper under the circumstances and should not be disturbed.
The appellant's remaining contentions lack merit.
Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.