Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a downward modification of pendente lite child support and maintenance (see, Katzenberg v Katzenberg, 166 A.D.2d 417, 418; Farinon v Farinon, 149 A.D.2d 655; Isham v Isham, 123 A.D.2d 742; see also, Brancoveanu v Brancoveanu, 177 A.D.2d 614). The record demonstrates that the defendant failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances warranting a downward modification (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Brancoveanu v Brancoveanu, supra; Scagnelli v Scagnelli, 127 A.D.2d 754; Lopez v Lopez, 121 A.D.2d 515; Ruffolo v Ruffolo, 114 A.D.2d 843). Moreover, upon our review of the record, we find that the court's award properly weighed the parties' respective finances and the plaintiff wife's need for maintenance pending trial (Tillinger v Tillinger, 141 A.D.2d 535; Isham v Isham, supra).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.