Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision ( see, Schicchi v. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509); and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 14, 1998, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order made upon reargument of a decision ( see, Stockfield v. Stockfield, 131 A.D.2d 834); and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment entered January 26, 1998, and the order entered April 13, 1998, are affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The issues raised on the appeals from the decision and the order dated January 14, 1998, are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment ( see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
The law is clear that the granting of an adjournment is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court ( see, Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 283; Zavurov v. City of New York, 241 A.D.2d 491; Balogh v. H.R.B. Caterers, 88 A.D.2d 136, 141-142). Under the circumstances of this case, including the parties' stipulation setting a trial date with no further adjournments, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' request for a two-month adjournment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint and the cross claims based on the plaintiffs' refusal to proceed ( see, 22 NYCRR 202.27; Brown v. Data Communications, 236 A.D.2d 499; Cromartie v. New York City Tr. Auth., 113 A.D.2d 915).
Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Thompson, JJ., concur.