Ordered that the order is modified, as a matter of discretion, by deleting therefrom that provision which directed the defendant husband to keep sufficient funds in the wife's checking account to allow her to draw up to $9,000 per month, and substituting therefor a provision directing the defendant husband to keep sufficient funds in the wife's checking account to allow her to draw up to $5,000 per month; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
As this Court has frequently observed, pendente lite awards should be "an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse", determined with due regard for the preseparation standard of living (Polito v Polito, 168 A.D.2d 440, 441, citing Shapiro v Shapiro, 163 A.D.2d 294). Although a speedy trial is the preferred method by which to remedy any perceived inequities in a pendente lite award (see, Gianni v Gianni, 172 A.D.2d 487; Barasch v Barasch, 166 A.D.2d 399), relief may be granted on appeal where justice so dictates (see, Rosenthal v Rosenthal, 173 A.D.2d 453; Wesler v Wesler, 133 A.D.2d 627). Taking into consideration the standard of living previously enjoyed by the parties, the parties' respective financial conditions, and the wife's reasonable needs, we find that the temporary maintenance awarded by the Supreme Court was excessive. An award of up to $5,000 per month in temporary maintenance, together with the additional pendente lite relief awarded by the court, would represent a more appropriate accommodation between the parties' needs under the circumstances of this case, and would be sufficient to ensure that the wife maintains her prior life style (see, Barasch v Barasch, supra; Zahr v Zahr, 149 A.D.2d 504; Bernstein v Bernstein, 143 A.D.2d 168; Match v Match, 134 A.D.2d 210). Balletta, J.P., Eiber, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.