We find no abuse of discretion in the court's ruling on defendant's motion for temporary maintenance (see, Chyrywaty v Chyrywaty, 102 A.D.2d 1009), there being ample support in the record for its finding that defendant is capable of earning $35,000 a year and is not in need of support beyond the payments plaintiff has been voluntarily making to maintain the marital residence (see, Lee v Lee, 41 A.D.2d 557). A speedy trial is the best remedy for any seeming inequity in a temporary maintenance order (supra, at 558). Nor was there merit to defendant's request that he be assigned counsel. There is no absolute right to assignment of counsel in a matrimonial action (Matter of Smiley, 36 N.Y.2d 433).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Milonas, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.