Jennifer M. Lorenz, Orchard Park, for defendant-appellant.

Rupp Baase Pfalzgraf Cunningham, LLC, Williamsville (Michael J. Colletta of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Emilio L. Colaiacovo, J.), entered November 27, 2019. The order, inter alia, directed defendant to pay monthly child support of $4,970 and awarded plaintiff interim counsel fees of $5,500.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this action for divorce and ancillary relief, defendant appeals from an order that, inter alia, directed him to pay temporary monthly child support of $4,970 and awarded plaintiff interim counsel fees of $5,500. We affirm.

"The Child Support Standards Act [CSSA] provides the formulas to be applied to the parties' income and the factors to be considered in determining a final award of child support (see Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b]). Courts considering applications for pendente lite child support may, in their discretion, apply the CSSA standards and guidelines, but they are not required to do so" (Davydova v Sasonov, 109 AD3d 955, 957 [2d Dept 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Thus, contrary to defendant's contention, Supreme Court was "not required to calculate [defendant's pendente lite] child support obligation pursuant to the CSSA" (Vistocco v Jardine, 116 AD3d 842, 843 [2d Dept 2014]; see § 236 [B] [7] [a]; Hof v Hof, 131 AD3d 579, 581 [2d Dept 2015]). With respect to defendant's contention that the court erred in its calculations, imputation of income, and application of the statutory factors, it is well settled that "[t]he remedy for any claimed inequity in [an] award[ ] of temporary . . . child support . . . is a speedy trial where the respective finances of the parties can be ascertained and a permanent award based on the evidence may be made" (Tabor v Tabor, 39 AD2d 640, 640 [4th Dept 1972] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Baxter v Baxter, 162 AD3d 1743, 1743-1744 [4th Dept 2018]).

Finally, contrary to defendant's further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiff interim counsel fees (see Domestic Relations Law § 237; Johnson v Chapin, 12 NY3d 461, 467 [2009], rearg denied 13 NY3d 888 [2009]; Vistocco, 116 AD3d at 844). Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Curran, Bannister and DeJoseph, JJ.