Opinion
April 24, 1995
Appeal from the Surrogate's Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.).
Ordered that the order and decree is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.
We agree with the Surrogate that the appellant's motion to vacate an amended decree that was issued in 1986 in an accounting proceeding is not the proper subject of a removal proceeding in 1993 (see, CPLR 5015 [a]; see, e.g., Gendjoian v Heaps, 186 A.D.2d 534). Moreover, the Surrogate correctly found that the appellant's complete failure to notify the persons who were parties to or interested in the amended decree precludes the grant of any relief to the appellant (see, 5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac ¶ 5015.15).
The Surrogate correctly concluded that the appellant had engaged in frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c). Moreover, we decline to disturb the Surrogate's award of costs for such frivolous conduct because it was made in a written decision that set forth the offending conduct and that explained why the Surrogate found the conduct to be frivolous and why the amount it awarded was appropriate (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.2; see, e.g., Johnson v Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 184 A.D.2d 230, 231; McMurray v McMurray, 163 A.D.2d 280, 282; Mechta v Mack, 156 A.D.2d 747). Balletta, J.P., Ritter, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.