The challenged awards of attorney fees were proper exercises of the Surrogate's "unquestionably broad discretion" to fix such fees (see, Matter of Estate of Urbach, 252 A.D.2d 318, 322). The services for which the fees were awarded were related to exposing petitioner's misconduct (see, Matter of Birnbaum v. Birnbaum, 157 A.D.2d 177, 191), which has previously been noted by this Court (see, Estate of Marsh, 173 A.D.2d 336, appeal dismissed 78 N.Y.2d 990). We do not agree with petitioner that the proceedings were affected by judicial bias (cf., Schrager v. New York Univ., 227 A.D.2d 189), nor do we find any defect in the referee's services. The bulk of petitioner's arguments on appeal are factual, and we decline to disturb the referee's findings of fact, accepted by the Surrogate, since those findings and the conclusions drawn therefrom rest upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (cf.,Estate of Clines, 226 A.D.2d 269, lv dismissed 88 N.Y.2d 1016). We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
SULLIVAN, J.P., TOM, RUBIN, SAXE, BUCKLEY, JJ.