Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the defendant husband's application for a downward modification of the pendente lite support order based upon an alleged change in his financial circumstances. In reaching this determination, we are compelled to voice again our general disapproval of the practice of taking appeals from orders granting pendente lite relief (Sonitis v Sonitis, 125 A.D.2d 661). The most expedient and best remedy for any perceived inequities in such awards is to press for an early trial (see, e.g., Schlosberg v Schlosberg, 130 A.D.2d 735; Velocci v Velocci, 122 A.D.2d 265, 266).
Nor do we find any merit to the defendant's argument that the trial court erred in refusing to direct that the marital residence be refinanced. Any directive which affects the disposition of marital property should generally be made only after a trial at which the facts regarding the parties' finances and assets may be ascertained. Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.