Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant contends that the pendente lite order directed him to pay amounts so excessive as to constitute an improvident exercise of discretion. We disagree.
The record reveals that the Supreme Court gave due consideration to the plaintiff's needs as well as the defendant's ability to provide for those needs, and the relief granted did not amount to an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Isham v. Isham, 123 A.D.2d 742).
We have considered the plaintiff's remaining contentions and have found them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.