In light of the demonstrated antagonisms between appellant co-trustee and the trust beneficiaries, and between appellant and his co-trustee, and the evidence establishing that those antagonisms resulted in actions by appellant co-trustee interfering with the proper administration of the estate, and upon the proof tending to demonstrate that future cooperation was unlikely, the Surrogate's determination to remove appellant as co-trustee was a proper exercise of discretion ( see, SCPA 711; Matter of Jurzykowski, 36 A.D.2d 488, affd 30 N.Y.2d 510; Matter of Rad, 162 Misc.2d 229; Matter of Lipsit, 50 Misc.2d 289).
The evidence presented on the trial of the removal action also supported splitting the trust pursuant to EPTL 7-1.13 (a) (3), and the appointment of appellant's siblings as co-trustees of the newly created trusts did not violate the provisions of SCPA 706.
Since we perceive no ground warranting an exception to our usual practice of deferring to the trial court's credibility determinations ( see, Cushman Wakefield v. 214 E. 49th St. Corp., 218 A.D.2d 464, appeal dismissed 88 N.Y.2d 951), we find appellant's remaining arguments premised upon challenges to those determinations to be unavailing.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach and Mazzarelli, JJ.