We agree with the Surrogate that the interrogatories in is-. sue are duplicative of information that had already been obtained through earlier disclosure, and, as such, should be struck as "`palpably improper'" notwithstanding that a motion for a protective order was not timely made ( Spancrete Northeast v. Elite Assocs., 148 A.D.2d 694, 695; Kimmel v. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison, 214 A.D.2d 453). We also agree with the Surrogate that the affidavit of objectant's former attorney raises an issue of fact as to whether objectant consented to the legal fee and commissions that petitioner paid to himself without prior court approval, that such issue precludes summary judgment directing petitioner's return of such fee and commissions, and that it should have been apparent to objectant that if his former attorney's affidavit raised an issue of consent precluding summary judgment as to the fee, the same affidavit necessarily precluded summary judgment as to the commissions ( see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]). We have considered objectant's claim that the Surrogate should recuse herself for bias and find it to be without merit ( see, People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Wallach, JJ.