Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, the Family Court did not err by imposing sanctions upon them for their frivolous conduct pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c), since there was evidence in the record that they both knew that there was no basis in law or fact to support the petition or the contempt motion. Furthermore, it became evident during the contempt hearing that the appellants had submitted to the court a petition which purported to be verified under oath by the mother but which she later admitted bore another person's signature. The petition contained allegations which the mother admitted, during cross-examination, were false (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]). Under the circumstances, sanctions were appropriate (see, Jones v. Canar Realty Corp., 167 A.D.2d 285, 287).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
O'Brien, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.