Estate of Marsh, In re

• Decision Date: 29 September 1994
• Citation: 207 A.D.2d 749,616 N.Y.S.2d 962
• Parties: In re ESTATE OF Nicholas MARSH a/k/a Nicholas V. Marsh, Deceased. Adrienne Marsh Lefkowitz, Petitioner-Appellant, Bank of New York, Respondent-Respondent, Claudia Appelbaum, et al., Remaindermen Beneficiary-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 962

616 N.Y.S.2d 962

207 A.D.2d 749

In re ESTATE OF Nicholas MARSH a/k/a Nicholas V. Marsh, Deceased.

Adrienne Marsh Lefkowitz, Petitioner-Appellant,

Bank of New York, Respondent-Respondent,

Claudia Appelbaum, et al., Remaindermen Beneficiary-Respondents.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division,

First Department.

Sept. 29, 1994.

Order, Surrogate's Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about July 28, 1993, which directed petitioner to pay $1000 in sanctions and $900 in costs, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Surrogate correctly found that petitioner's motion to disqualify opposing counsel was frivolous, since the motion added nothing in either fact or theory to petitioner's prior unsuccessful motions for the same relief on identical grounds (see, 179 A.D.2d 578, 578 N.Y.S.2d 911; 179 A.D.2d 581, 579 N.Y.S.2d 64). Having been apprised by the court of her intention to consider the issues of costs and sanctions, and then availing herself of the opportunity to submit an affidavit in opposition, petitioner was provided adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, despite the absence of a formal evidentiary hearing (Dubai Bank Ltd. v. Ayyub, 187 A.D.2d 373, 589 N.Y.S.2d 486; 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[d]. The written order of the Surrogate sufficiently complied with the requirements of the Uniform Rules ( Lynn v. Barnes & Noble, 189 A.D.2d 560, 592 N.Y.S.2d 252) in explaining the relatively modest sanction imposed under the circumstances of this case.

SULLIVAN, J.P., and CARRO, KUPFERMAN, NARDELLI and TOM, JJ., concur.