Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellant personally.
The appellant argues that the petitioner's application for a compulsory accounting with respect to the estate of Martin H. King is barred by the Statute of Limitations. We disagree. There are questions of fact as to whether the appellant is a de facto fiduciary under the will of his deceased father. Assuming, arguendo, that the appellant is in fact a fiduciary, we find that he did not establish as a matter of law that he openly repudiated his fiduciary obligations. Thus, he did not establish that the proceeding is time-barred (see, Matter of Behr, 191 A.D.2d 431; Matter of Sakow, 146 Misc.2d 672; Saldi v. Saldi, 32 Misc.2d 516).
Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the Surrogate's Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in disqualifying the law firm of Morrison, Cohen, Singer Weinstein from representing the appellant in both proceedings on the basis of an appearance of impropriety (see, Matter of Hof, 102 A.D.2d 591, 595).
We have considered the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Miller, Eiber and Santucci, JJ., concur.