Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff wife's claims, we find that the court acted within its discretion in declining to award her temporary maintenance. The record reveals that, at the time of the application, the wife was the part owner of a business and the husband, who had worked at that business prior to the separation, was not regularly employed. Because of the wife's superior financial resources, the court correctly determined that an award of temporary maintenance was not necessary (see, Friedman v Friedman, 163 A.D.2d 461; Salerno v Salerno, 142 A.D.2d 670; LoMuscio-Hamparian v Hamparian, 137 A.D.2d 500; Stern v Stern, 106 A.D.2d 631).
For similar reasons, the court correctly declined to direct the husband to pay the carrying charges on the marital residence, provide medical or dental insurance, or pay for unreimbursed medical expenses. We note that the best remedy for any inequities in pendente lite orders is a speedy trial (see, Bernstein v Bernstein, 143 A.D.2d 168; Gastineau v Gastineau, 127 A.D.2d 629). Kunzeman, J.P., Balletta, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.