Ordered that the order is modified by (1) deleting the provisions granting the plaintiff $1,000 in appraisal fees and $2,500 in accounting fees, and substituting therefor provisions increasing these pendente lite awards to $3,000 and $5,000, respectively, and (2) by deleting the provision referring the plaintiff's application for pendente lite counsel fees to the trial court, and substituting therefor a provision awarding her pendente lite counsel fees in the amount of $7,500; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff; and it is further,
Ordered that the above awards for appraisal, accounting, and counsel fees are to be paid from an escrow account containing the funds of the sale of certain properties held by Douglas Penny, Esq.
Considering the complexity of the defendant's past and present business interests and that the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating their value at trial, and given the respective financial positions of the parties, we conclude that an award to the plaintiff of $3,000 in expert appraisal fees and $5,000 in expert accounting fees is appropriate ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 237; Schwartz v Schwartz, 160 A.D.2d 791). Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff is entitled to an award of pendente lite counsel fees in the amount of $7,500 ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 237; Marksohn v Marksohn, 198 A.D.2d 70; see also, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879). However, the trial court properly denied the plaintiff's application for an increase in interim child support, since the plaintiff failed to show exigent circumstances to support such a modification in the existing interim support order ( see, Green v Green, 216 A.D.2d 353; Gitter v Gitter, 208 A.D.2d 895).
We find no merit to the plaintiff's remaining contentions.
We note that until discovery is complete and the parties have had an opportunity to present their respective cases, a determination of the status of the corporate assets in question for purposes of equitable distribution would be premature. Copertino, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.