—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered August 5, 1993, which, inter alia, directed defendant to pay plaintiff’s counsel fees in the amount of $15,000 and denied defendant’s motion for downward modification or vacatur of a prior order of temporary maintenance; order, same court and Justice, entered January 6, 1994, which, inter alia, denied another motion by defendant to vacate or modify the prior order of temporary maintenance; order, same court and Justice, entered January 21, 1994, which, inter alia, precluded defendant from taking deposition testimony respecting claimed misconduct by plaintiff and her attorney in not disclosing $17,000 in currency on plaintiff’s Net Worth Statement and the payment of attorneys’ fees by plaintiff’s parents; and order, same court and Justice, entered February 25, 1994, which denied defendant’s motion to reargue the order of January 6, 1994, and granted plaintiff’s cross-motion for sanctions to the extent of directing defendant’s attorney to pay $1,000 to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection as a sanction for frivolous motion practice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
We agree with the IAS Court that in this action for divorce, maintenance and equitable distribution, the claimed inequities in a temporary maintenance order that defendant asserts are due to changed circumstances should be resolved by a prompt trial (Jose R. D. v Elisabeth R. D., 197 AD2d 457). Plaintiff’s alleged possession of sufficient funds to pay a portion of her outstanding attorneys’ fees did not preclude the award of interim counsel fees, the court’s exercise of discretion in this respect not being dependent upon a showing of indigency