Opinion
May 7, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.).
The appropriate remedy for any perceived inequities in a pendente lite award is a prompt trial where the facts may be examined in far greater detail and where a more accurate appraisal of the financial situations of the parties may be obtained ( Sayer v. Sayer, 130 A.D.2d 407, 407-408). While there may be uncertainty here as to whether plaintiff-husband's income from a successful family business is limited, as he claims, to his reported salary, this pendente lite award cannot be found to be so onerous as to deprive plaintiff of income and assets necessary to meet his own expenses. Plaintiff's motion for renewal was properly denied since the "new evidence" which was submitted was not in evidentiary form and consisted of double hearsay. Plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.