Ordered that the appeal from the order dated December 19, 1985, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated February 4, 1986, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated February 4, 1986, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.
Ordinarily, appeals from the granting of pendente lite relief are not favored inasmuch as it is clearly more expedient and less consuming of both judicial time and that of the attorneys if counsel would promptly proceed to trial (see, Hildenbiddle v Hildenbiddle, 110 A.D.2d 819, 820; Epstein v. Epstein, 48 A.D.2d 792 ; Singh v. Singh, 41 A.D.2d 914). This is particularly true in a case such as the instant one where the affidavits and supporting documents present sharply conflicting views of the financial situation of the parties and a speedy trial would permit prompt examination of the facts in far greater detail and allow a more accurate appraisal of the situation of the parties than can be made on a motion for temporary relief (see, Chyrywaty v. Chyrywaty, 102 A.D.2d 1009; Woram v. Woram, 78 A.D.2d 796).
Under the circumstances, a speedy trial is the most effective means of resolving any claimed inequities in this regard (see, Liss v. Liss, 87 A.D.2d 681, 682). Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.