Opinion
January 23, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.).
The IAS Court properly determined that an article 78 proceeding in the Supreme Court was an inappropriate vehicle for seeking the relief requested herein. The proper procedure to follow to challenge the Surrogate's Court determination would have been to take an appeal to this Court of the Surrogate's denial of petitioners' motion to vacate the appointment of the guardian ( see, e.g., Matter of Sommer, 178 A.D.2d 480). To the extent that petitioners sought relief in the nature of mandamus on this issue, their argument is misplaced, since the Surrogate cannot be commanded to exercise discretionary functions in a prescribed manner ( Matter of Goldstick v Lambert, 161 A.D.2d 503, 504). There is no basis to grant relief on petitioners' request for an order disqualifying Surrogates Roth and Preminger.
We have considered petitioners' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.