Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 21, 1992, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated March 16, 1993, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated March 16, 1993, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations or justice otherwise requires (see, Raniolo v Raniolo, 185 A.D.2d 974). The general rule continues to be 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). A review of the particular facts and circumstances of this case indicates that the pendente lite award was not "so prohibitive" as to prevent the defendant from meeting his own financial obligations (Androvett v. Androvett, 172 A.D.2d 792). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.