McMahon v. McMahonMcMahon v. McMahon
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
“Modifications of pendente lite awards should rarely be made by an appellate court and then only under exigent circumstances, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or justice otherwise requires” (Malik v Malik, 66 AD3d 968, 968 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Conyea v Conyea, 81 AD3d 869 [2011]; Avello v Avello, 72 AD3d 850 [2010]; Nealis v Nealis, 71 AD3d 851 [2010]; Maksoud v Maksoud, 71 AD3d 643 [2010]). Any perceived inequities in pendente lite support can best be remedied by a speedy trial, at which the parties’ financial circumstances can be fully explored (see Avello v Avello, 72 AD3d 850 [2010]; Levy v Levy, 72 AD3d 651 [2010]; Nealis v Nealis, 71 AD3d 851 [2010]; Maksoud v Maksoud, 71 AD3d 643 [2010]; Swickle v Swickle, 47 AD3d 704, 705 [2008]).
The defendant did not meet his burden of demonstrating exigent circumstances so as to warrant modification of the pendente lite award. Accordingly, the award will not be disturbed. Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.