Michael Arnstein, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. PLLC (2026)

Michael Arnstein, appellant pro se.

Stein Saks, PLLC, New York (Yehuda Stein of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judy H. Kim, J.), entered December 22, 2025, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion for an order enjoining plaintiff from commencing any new litigation against them without first obtaining judicial permission, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff had actual notice and an opportunity to respond to the specific request for a prefiling injunction raised by defendants in their legal memoranda before the trial court.  That court providently exercised its discretion in issuing the injunction based on the record before it (see e.g. Matter of Jiggetts v New York City Human Resources Admin., 156 AD3d 552, 553 [1st Dept 2017], lv dismissed 33 NY3d 1050 [2019] ).

The court's order adequately stated that the record reflects that such relief is necessary “to prevent use of the judicial system as a vehicle for harassment, ill will and spite.”  The court was not required to comply with the 22 NYCRR 130–1.2 requirement of a written decision setting forth the conduct on which the award or imposition is based and the reasons why the court found the conduct to be frivolous.  A prefiling injunction is separate and distinct from a 130–1 sanction (see e.g. Bartlett v. Tribeca Lending Corp., 192 AD3d 574, 575 [1st Dept 2021], lv dismissed 37 NY3d 1043 [2021];  Abe v. New York Univ., 169 AD3d 445, 450 [1st Dept 2019], lv dismissed 34 NY3d 1089 [2020] ).  Moreover, plaintiff offers no support to the contrary.