Opinion
December 27, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order entered June 4, 1992, as failed to decide the plaintiff's cross motion for sanctions is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered April 19, 1991, is affirmed, and the order entered June 4, 1992, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendants' motion for a protective order (see, CPLR 3103 [a]). Nor was it error to compel the plaintiff to produce a list of witnesses on the issue of the decedent's condition prior to entering into the subject agreement (see, Zellman v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 40 A.D.2d 248).
The appeal from so much of the order entered June 4, 1992, as failed to decide the plaintiff's cross motion for sanctions must be dismissed (see, Katz v Katz, 68 A.D.2d 536). In any event, we find no merit to the plaintiff's contention that the court should have imposed sanctions against the defendants for frivolous conduct (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.