Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in requiring the plaintiff to pay only $600 a week total for pendente lite maintenance and child support. The court properly considered both the financial needs of the defendant and the parties' respective financial conditions ( see, e.g., Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6], [7]; Fascaldi v. Fascaldi, 186 A.D.2d 532; Chachkes v. Chachkes, 107 A.D.2d 786, 787; Van Ess v. Van Ess, 100 A.D.2d 848). The award strikes a proper balance between the reasonable needs of the defendant and the financial ability of the plaintiff to pay ( see, Salerno v. Salerno, 142 A.D.2d 670, 672), taking into account their pre-separation standard of living ( see, Ferdinand v. Ferdinand, 215 A.D.2d 350; Wagner v. Wagner, 175 A.D.2d 391), as well as the defendant's substantial assets ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b]; see, e.g., Van Ess v. Van Ess, 100 A.D.2d 848, supra; Dyson v. Dyson, 92 A.D.2d 857; Thea v. Thea, 75 A.D.2d 618; see also, Lapkin v. Lapkin, 208 A.D.2d 474; Nordgren v. Nordgren, 237 A.D.2d 498). Where, as here, a pendente lite award is not deficient, the proper remedy to correct any inequity is a speedy trial, where any error can be rectified on a full record, retroactive to the date of the defendant's application for pendente lite support ( see, e.g., Campanella v. Campanella, 232 A.D.2d 598; Beige v. Beige, 220 A.D.2d 636; Gianni v. Gianni, 172 A.D.2d 487; see also, Nolfo v. Nolfo, 188 A.D.2d 451; cf., Bernstein v. Bernstein, 213 A.D.2d 508; Byer v. Byer, 199 A.D.2d 298; Polito v. Polito, 168 A.D.2d 440).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Ritter, J.P., Altman, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.