Opinion
January 6, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.).
The court did not abuse its discretion and properly considered the relevant factors (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]) in awarding interim maintenance that would permit plaintiff "to be maintained at the standard to which she has become accustomed during the course of the marriage" (Tregellas v. Tregellas, 169 A.D.2d 553). In order to ensure this maintenance, it was also proper to require continuation of all life insurance during the pendency of this action (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [8] [a]). Any inequity in the award is best remedied through a speedy trial (Sayer v. Sayer, 130 A.D.2d 407). Indigency is not a prerequisite to an award of counsel fees, which was here properly based upon the financial circumstances of the parties and the particulars of the case (Domestic Relations Law § 237; DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879). Finally, under the circumstances, the court properly denied disclosure of documents predating the marriage.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.