Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improperly refuse to grant him a third adjournment before deciding the underlying motion and cross motion. "The grant or denial of a motion for `an adjournment for any purpose is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court'" ( Matter of Steven B., 6 NY3d 888, 889, quoting Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 283; see Matter of Ciccone v Ciccone, 73 AD3d 1052; Diamond v Diamante, 57 AD3d 826, 827). Upon consideration of all of the attendant circumstances in this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant's request for a third adjournment ( see Lopez v DePietro, 82 AD3d 715, 715-716; Matter of Philip K. v Thervey B., 78 AD3d 1183, 1184).
Similarly, the Supreme Court did not err in deciding the motion and cross motion without a hearing, since the appellant failed to demonstrate the existence of any relevant factual dispute warranting a hearing ( see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Zlotoff 77 AD3d 702).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.