Opinion
March 12, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.).
The award of temporary maintenance was properly based upon the statutory factors (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]), taking into account plaintiff's reasonable needs, defendant's financial ability, the parties' prior lavish standard of living, and the great discrepancy between their financial positions ( see, Baker v Baker, 120 A.D.2d 374; Lasry v Lasry, 180 A.D.2d 488). It was also within the court's discretion to award interim counsel fees (Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]), without a showing of need or requiring that plaintiff dispose of her only assets ( see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 881). The court also properly considered statutory calculations as well as factors permitting a deviation therefrom (Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c], [f]) in awarding interim child support ( see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. v Raymond S., 180 A.D.2d 510). While defendant contends that the total award exceeds his monthly income, the record reveals substantial understatement of income. To the extent any inequities may exist, defendant's remedy is to proceed to a speedy trial ( see, Hills v Hills, 182 A.D.2d 584).
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.