Opinion
2000-04491
Argued November 13, 2001.
December 17, 2001.
In an accounting proceeding, the objectant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate's Court, Kings County (Feinberg, S.), dated December 20, 1999, as denied her motion to vacate a decree of the same court (Bloom, S.), dated July 14, 1992.
Jacob Rabinowitz, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Kenneth Allen Habel, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SONDRA MILLER, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
We agree with the Surrogate's Court that the objectant failed to demonstrate that a decree dated July 14, 1992, should be vacated as having been procured by the fraud of the executor and his attorney (see, CPLR 5015[a]; Dubinsky v. Rykowsky, 266 A.D.2d 496; Matter of Carroll v. Bene, 246 A.D.2d 649; Summer v. Summer, 233 A.D.2d 881).
The objectant's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and S. MILLER, JJ., concur.