The sua sponte dismissal of plaintiff's complaint was a proper exercise of discretion in view of his many frivolous motions and repeated disregard of court orders (cf., Wehringer v. Brannigan, 232 A.D.2d 206, 207, appeal dismissed 89 N.Y.2d 980; Kihl v. Pfeffer, 94 N.Y.2d 118, 122-123). It was also a proper exercise of discretion to enjoin plaintiff from initiating any further litigation against defendant without prior court approval in order to prevent his further use of the courts as a means of harassing and embarrassing defendant (see, Matter of Sud v. Sud, 227 A.D.2d 319; Novel v. Salzberg, 253 A.D.2d 684, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 816, rearg denied 93 N.Y.2d 849, cert denied 527 U.S. 1007, reh denied 527 U.S. 1055; see also, 257 A.D.2d 53; Jones v. Trump, 96 Civ 2995 [SAS], 1997 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7324, 26-27, affd 1998 U.S. App LEXIS 23531, cert denied 527 U.S. 1003).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.