Opinion
January 21, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.).
Ordered that the order dated December 5, 1989, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated March 13, 1990, is modified, as a matter of discretion, by deleting the sentence "Defendant shall pay costs in the sum of $750 to court, Client Security Fund and $150 to plaintiffs", and substituting therefore the following: "The defendant's attorneys, Diamond, Paino and Cardo are directed to pay $750 in sanctions to the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection and the sum of $150 in costs to counsel for the plaintiff"; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the costs and sanctions shall be paid by the Diamond, Paino and Cardo, within 20 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in imposing sanctions and costs because of the frivolous conduct of the appellant's trial attorneys in interfering with the plaintiff's right to photograph the accident site (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]; Odette Realty Co. v. DiBianco, 170 A.D.2d 299, 301; Harley v. Druzba, 169 A.D.2d 1001, 1003; Dellafiora v Dellafiora, 172 A.D.2d 715). However, since the plaintiff sought sanctions against the appellant's trial counsel, and the record establishes that it was trial counsel who committed the frivolous conduct, we modify the order to direct that the attorneys personally, rather than the appellant, shall pay the sanctions and costs (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 — 130-1.3; cf., Matter of Minister, Elders Deacons of Refm. Prot. Dutch Church v. 198 Broadway, 76 N.Y.2d 411). Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.