ADDITIONAL CASES Arsen Uvaydov, Ruholding Corp d/b/a Ruconcert and Arsenal Consulting, Inc. d/b/a Arsenal Group, Plaintiffs v. Lev Paukman and Joseph Paukman, Defendants; 157083/2016 The following papers efiled on NYSCEF were used on this motion: Filed by Joseph Paukman, Esq. NYSCEF Doc No. 55: Proposed order to show cause NYSCEF Doc No. 56: Affirmation of Joseph Paukman, Esq. NYSCEF Doc No. 57: Exhibit A — UCC Financing Statement on 6535 Yellowstone Blvd., #4G, Forest Hills, NY 11375 for benefit of Theater for the New City Foundation Inc. NYSCEF Doc No. 58: Exhibit B — UCC Financing Statement on 6535 Yellowstone Blvd., #4G, Forest Hills, NY 11375 for benefit of Joseph Paukman Filed by Defendants Diana Uvaydov, Arsen Uvaydov, Ruholding Corp d/b/a Ruconcert, and Arsenal Consulting, Inc. d/b/a Arsenal Group NYSCEF Doc No. 59: Affirmation of Charles J. Gaynor, Esq. in opposition Filed by Joseph Paukman, Esq. NYSCEF Doc No. 60: Correspondence from Joseph Paukman, Esq. Filed by Court NYSCEF Doc No. 71: Signed order to show cause Filed by Joseph Paukman, Esq. NYSCEF Doc No. 72: Affirmation of service of Joseph Paukman, Esq. NYSCEF Doc No. 73: Reply affirmation of Joseph Paukman, Esq. ORDER Upon the foregoing papers, having heard oral argument1, and due deliberation having been had, the within motion by Joseph Paukman, Esq., is DENIED. This Court heard oral argument today on a motion by Joseph Paukman, Esq. (“Attorney Paukman”), brought on by order to show cause. The motion is made by Attorney Paukman on behalf of himself and not on behalf of any party. The motion seeks the following: A. CPLR §6401 appoint a receiver to handle all assets from the sale of 6535 Yellowstone Blvd unit 4G Forest Hills NY 11375 until the end of this litigation[.] B. Preliminary Injunction, Attachment, and Appointment of a Receiver Regarding the Yellowstone Property. C. and any other relief this Court deems just and proper[,] (NYSCEF Doc No. 71, order to show cause at 1-2.) In support of his motion, Attorney Paukman submitted affirmations which were chock full of legal discussion concerning temporary restraining orders, attachment, receivers, preliminary injunctions, attorney charging liens, equitable relief, traceability of stolen funds, constructive trusts, and dissipation of assets (see generally NYSCEF Doc Nos. 56, Paukman aff; 73, Paukman reply aff), but short on the facts underpinning his application to the Court. What was discernable from Attorney Paukman’s papers was that his assertion that apartment 4G at 6535 Yellowstone Boulevard, Forest Hills, Queens, New York “apartment 4G”) was “financed with stolen funds belonging to the plaintiff” and that he held “an attorney’s charging lien in this case” (NYSCEF Doc No. 56, Paukman aff at 2). Where apartment 4G fit within the context of the instant action was a mystery to this Court as it read through Attorney Paukman’s motion papers in advance of oral argument. As previously written, “In the days preceding a Motion Calendar Day, this Court reviews the memoranda and the papers submitted by the proponents and opponents of the motions. Research as necessary into case law is performed. A lot of time is expended in becoming familiar with the motions in advance.” (Matter of Court’s Discharge of its Responsibilities Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 100.3 (D) (2), (3), 80 Misc 3d 813, 814 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023].) The affirmation of counsel in opposition to the motion asserted in pertinent part: 2. The within litigation is a business dispute with an extensive discovery and motion history largely complicated by occasionally pro se litigant JOSEPH PAUKMAN, the movant. 3. The apartment at issue has nothing to do with this litigation. This matter is scheduled for trial (JCP appearance) for 1-15-25 and the apartment referenced in the rambling submission by Mr. Paukman is not at issue herein and never has been. Whatever Mr. Paukman is talking about with respect to “stolen” funds is part and parcel of Mr. Paukman’s occasional off-centered assertions. 4. In any event, I have also spoken to Mr. Hakimi, my client’s real estate attorney, and Mr. Hakimi advises that the sale of the apartment/shares is completed. 5. Finally, for a variety of reasons, the filing by Mr. Paukman is procedurally defective and I don’t care to educate Mr. Paukman. I will defer to the Court. (NYSCEF Doc No. 59, Gaynor aff
