The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has upheld a decision to prevent Michael Arnstein from filing new lawsuits against Stein Saks, PLLC without prior judicial approval. This ruling, issued on October 6, 2026, is significant as it addresses the misuse of the judicial system and aims to protect defendants from potential harassment.

The court's decision comes in response to a motion filed by Stein Saks, PLLC, which sought a prefiling injunction against Arnstein. The ruling affects Arnstein directly, as it restricts his ability to initiate legal action against the firm without first obtaining permission from the court. This case highlights the court's efforts to maintain the integrity of the legal process and prevent frivolous litigation.

Background

The parties involved in this case are Michael Arnstein, the plaintiff, and Stein Saks, PLLC, the defendant. Arnstein has previously engaged in legal disputes with the firm, prompting Stein Saks to seek an injunction against him. The dispute escalated to the Appellate Division after a lower court granted the firm's request for a prefiling injunction.

The case reached the Appellate Division after Arnstein appealed a December 22, 2025, order from the Supreme Court, New York County. In that order, Judge Judy H. Kim ruled in favor of Stein Saks, allowing the firm to prevent Arnstein from filing new lawsuits without prior court approval. Arnstein represented himself in the appeal, while Stein Saks was represented by attorney Yehuda Stein.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision to grant the injunction against Arnstein. The judges on the panel included Justices Mendez, Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, and O'Neill Levy. The court ruled that Arnstein had actual notice of the request for a prefiling injunction and had the opportunity to respond to it.

The court stated, "The court providently exercised its discretion in issuing the injunction based on the record before it," emphasizing the necessity of such relief to prevent the misuse of the judicial system.

The court also noted that the order was justified to prevent Arnstein from using the legal system as a tool for harassment. The judges highlighted that the lower court was not required to provide a written decision detailing the conduct that warranted the injunction, as a prefiling injunction is distinct from sanctions imposed for frivolous conduct.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for Arnstein, as it restricts his ability to engage in future litigation against Stein Saks without prior judicial approval. It serves as a warning to other individuals who may consider filing multiple lawsuits against the same defendants without valid grounds. The court's decision reinforces the principle that the judicial system should not be used for harassment or ill will.

Furthermore, the ruling could set a precedent for similar cases in the future, where courts may impose prefiling injunctions to prevent abuse of the legal system. This decision emphasizes the responsibility of litigants to use the courts appropriately and discourages frivolous lawsuits.

What's Next

Arnstein may seek to appeal the Appellate Division's decision to a higher court, although details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending at this time.