Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated March 3, 2008, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to vacate the order dated November 30, 2007, and the appeal from the order dated April 7, 2008, are dismissed as academic in light of our determination in a related appeal ( see Gorelik v Gorelik, 71 AD3d 730, 2010 NY Slip Op 01922 [decided herewith]); and it is further,
Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order dated March 3, 2008, as, sua sponte, enjoined the plaintiff from bringing any further motions regarding the issue of the preclusive effect of the bankruptcy action on these proceedings, is deemed an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal from that portion of the order is granted ( see CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated March 3, 2008 is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in enjoining him from bringing any further motions regarding the issue of the preclusive effect of the findings contained in a Bankruptcy Court order on these proceedings in light of his numerous requests in several other motions for the same relief ( see Mancini v Mancini, 269 AD2d 366; Duffy v Holt-Harris, 260 AD2d 595; Matter of Shreve v Shreve, 229 AD2d 1005, 1006; Sassower v Signorelli, 99 AD2d 358, 359).