Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well settled that pendente lite awards are designed to ensure that a needy spouse is provided with funds for his or her support and reasonable needs and those of the children in his or her custody ( see, Gold v. Gold, 212 A.D.2d 503; Bagner v. Bagner, 207 A.D.2d 367), and that a speedy trial is the best remedy for perceived inequities in such awards ( see, Entin v. Entin, 204 A.D.2d 385; Filosa v. Raven-Filosa, 185 A.D.2d 225; Erdheim v Erdheim, 101 A.D.2d 803). In the case before us, in addition to awarding maintenance and child support, the court directed the husband to pay all carrying charges on the marital residence, including mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, fuel, telephone, electric, cable and trash pickup. Additionally, the husband was directed to maintain medical, dental, optical, and life insurance for the wife and children and auto insurance for two vehicles. Further, the husband was directed to pay the college expenses for the parties' daughter. Under these circumstances, the pendente lite relief awarded by the court was sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of the children and the wife during the pendency of the action ( see, O'Connor v. O'Connor, 207 A.D.2d 334; Ragusa v. Capetola, 199 A.D.2d 311). In addition, the court properly credited the husband for the voluntary maintenance and child support payments he made ( see, Berge v. Berge, 159 A.D.2d 960; Salerno v. Salerno, 142 A.D.2d 670, 672). Sullivan, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.