Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
As we have previously stated, appeals from orders granting pendente lite relief are disfavored as it is clearly more expedient and in the interests of judicial economy to proceed promptly to trial (see, Berger v Berger, 125 A.D.2d 285). In this case the affidavits submitted presented extremely conflicting views of the financial situation of the plaintiff wife. A speedy trial would permit a prompt and more detailed examination of the facts for the purposes of making an award, if any, of permanent maintenance (see, Woram v Gilliam, 78 A.D.2d 796).
We find that, contrary to the husband's contention, it was not indisputably shown that the wife committed perjury in respect to her financial situation. No affidavit was submitted by an accountant to explain the disbursements attributed to the wife or to dispute her claimed income. In any event, the husband would not be entitled to restitution or recoupment of the payments made pursuant to the modified temporary maintenance award (see, Rodgers v Rodgers, 98 A.D.2d 386; Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 42 A.D.2d 590; Matter of Klein v Klein, 58 A.D.2d 811; Grossman v Ostrow, 33 A.D.2d 1006). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.