Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Based upon our review of the record we perceive no reason to substitute our discretion for that of the trial court which considered the relevant factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a) in determining this application for pendente lite relief (see, Catania v. Catania, 111 A.D.2d 896; Romanoff v. Romanoff, 111 A.D.2d 158). The pendente lite award of maintenance and other relief was not excessive when viewed in relation to the parties' respective financial circumstances and the plaintiff wife's need for support pending trial (see, e.g., Stern v. Stern, 106 A.D.2d 631; Jorgensen v. Jorgensen, 86 A.D.2d 861). The proper remedy for any perceived inequities in pendente lite support is to press for an early trial (see, e.g., Schwartz v. Schwartz, 112 A.D.2d 154; Romanoff v. Romanoff, supra; Chachkes v. Chachkes, 107 A.D.2d 786).
The defendant did not oppose in the court of first instance the award of pendente lite accountant's fees or temporary exclusive occupancy of the marital residence and, therefore, has not preserved those issues for appellate review (see, Zeballos v Zeballos, 104 A.D.2d 1033, 1034, lv dismissed 65 N.Y.2d 690, rearg denied 65 N.Y.2d 1054; Brent-Grand v. Megavolt Corp., 97 A.D.2d 783). In any event, we find the defendant's arguments on those issues to be without merit (see, Wolfe v. Wolfe, 111 A.D.2d 809, 810; cf., Billington v. Billington, 111 A.D.2d 203).
Lastly, we find that the minimal restraint placed on the defendant's brokerage accounts was a proper exercise of the court's discretion in view of the possibility that any appreciation in these accounts may constitute marital property. Thus, the restraint placed on those accounts was proper to preserve the assets (see, e.g., Monroe v. Monroe, 108 A.D.2d 793; Leibowits v. Leibowits, 93 A.D.2d 535). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Harwood, JJ., concur.