Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well settled that the proper remedy for any perceived inequities in a pendente lite award is a speedy trial, and that "modifications of pendente lite awards 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 it" (see, Gitter v. Gitter, 208 A.D.2d 895; Bagner v. Bagner, 207 A.D.2d 367; see also, Gianni v. Gianni, 172 A.D.2d 487). Contrary to the husband's contention, we find that the Supreme Court's pendente lite award represents a reasonable accommodation between the wife's needs and his financial ability to provide for those needs (see, Bernstein v. Bernstein, 213 A.D.2d 508; Byer v Byer, 199 A.D.2d 298). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the award. Copertino, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.