Case Name: Alexander Gliklad, Respondent, v. Michael Chernoi, Defendant. Arik Kislin, Nonparty Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-04-21
Citations: 138 A.D.3d 585
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alexander Gliklad, Respondent, v Michael Chernoi, Defendant. Arik Kislin, Nonparty Appellant.
Judges: Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 585–586

Head Matter:
Alexander Gliklad, Respondent, v Michael Chernoi, Defendant. Arik Kislin, Nonparty Appellant.
[28 NYS3d 613]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered December 17, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied nonparty Arik Kislin's motion for a protective order, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered June 23, 2015, which effectively granted re-argument of the motion for a protective order, and, upon re-argument, adhered to the original determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.
The motion court (Schweitzer, J.) providently exercised its discretion in denying Kislin's motion for a protective order limiting plaintiff's use of a restraining notice (see Fiore v Oakwood Plaza Shopping Ctr., 178 AD2d 311, 312 [1st Dept 1991], appeal dismissed 80 NY2d 826 [1992]). The restraining notice states that Kislin is restrained from making "any sale, assignment or transfer of . . . all property in which the judgment debtor [defendant] has an interest." Although the notice would be ineffective if the judgment debtor defendant does not have any interest in property in Kislin's possession or custody (see CPLR 5222 [b]; Gallant v Kanterman, 198 AD2d 76, 78 [1st Dept 1993]), postjudgment discovery is incomplete and there is evidence of an extensive and entwined business relationship between Kislin, the judgment debtor, and a nonparty, Iskander Makhmudov, involving their interests in various entities, including the Hotel Gansevoort. Accordingly, there is no basis for a protective order at this time.
We have considered Kislin's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.