Contrary to the appellants' contention, the record supports the Supreme Court's determination that the conduct complained of was willful and contumacious ( see e.g. Black v. Little, 5 AD3d 520, 521; Robinson v. Pediatric Assoc. of Irwin Ave., 307 AD2d 1029, 1030; Gourdine v. Phelps Mem. Hosp., 40 AD2d 694). Nevertheless, under the particular circumstances of this case, and as a matter of discretion, we find that a monetary sanction in the sum of $10,000, payable to the plaintiff by the appellants' trial attorney, constitutes an appropriate sanction ( see Curcio v. Hogan Coring Sawing Corp., 303 AD2d 357, 359; DeFoe v. Bankers Trust Co., 179 AD2d 737, 738). The appellants' remaining contention is without merit ( seeKennedy v. Children's Hosp. of Buffalo, 303 AD2d 937, 937-938; Brothers v. Bunkoff Gen. Contrs., 296 AD2d 764, 765; see also Rupp-Elmasri v. Elmasri, 8 AD3d 464, 465).
Finally, the arguments advanced by Baron Associates in opposition to the defendants' motion to vacate were utterly devoid of merit, failed to address the applicable statutory and case law, and were advanced, once their lack of merit was apparent, for the purpose of delaying the vacatur of judgment (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c][1]; Matter of Parkside Ltd. Liab. Co., 294 A.D.2d 582). Since the record establishes that it was the plaintiff's counsel who committed the frivolous conduct, we direct that, upon the determination by the Supreme Court of the appropriate amount of the award of sanction, costs, disbursements, attorney's fee, the law firm of Baron Associates personally pay the award (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[b]; DeFoe v. Bankers Trust Co., 179 A.D.2d 737). ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, McGINITY and TOWNES, JJ., concur.