Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant's argument regarding the Supreme Court's imposition of a condition on the adjournment requested by him, and its subsequent rejection of his sur-reply affidavit when he failed to comply with the condition, relates to rulings which are not embodied in the order appealed from (see, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C5512:1, at 161), and is therefore not properly before this Court. In any event, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion (see, e.g., Gabrelian v Gabrelian, 108 A.D.2d 445, 448-451).
Under the circumstances, the award of interim attorneys' fees and expert fees was an appropriate exercise of the Supreme Court's discretion (see, Rodriguez v Rodriguez, 175 A.D.2d 157; Ahern v Ahern, 94 A.D.2d 53, 58).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.