DECISION & ORDERBACKGROUND FACTS Plaintiff/judgment creditor Jose Borges retained Defendant/judgment debtor Alfred Placeres, an immigration attorney, for immigration proceedings. During the proceedings, Defendant instructed Plaintiff not to appear in immigration court on a specific date. Upon Plaintiff’s absence, an immigration court judge issued an in absentia deportation order which resulted in Plaintiff’s 14-month detention. Plaintiff consequently filed a legal malpractice action arguing, in sum and substance, that Defendant’s instruction was negligent (Borges v. Placeres, 43 Misc 3d 61, 63 [App Term 2014], affd, 123 AD3d 611 [1st Dept 2014]). The jury found unanimously in favor of Plaintiff that Defendant committed malpractice and a judgment was entered of $1,250,206.37 — including, as relevant here, damages for pain and suffering in the amount of $900,000.00.Defendant subsequently engaged in several unsuccessful appeals, arguing, in relevant part, for vacatur of the verdict because damages for pain and suffering are unrecoverable for legal malpractice (43 Misc 3d 61 [App Term 1st Dept 2014]; 123 AD3d 611 [1st Dept 2014]; 2015 NY Slip Op 77781[U] [1st Dept 2015]). The Appellate Term held thatWith respect to damages, it need be emphasized that our review of the jury’s award may not be based on the recent decisional law relied upon by defendant — precedent holding that an award of nonpecuniary damages is generally unavailable to a plaintiff in an action for attorney malpractice. Notably, defendant did not raise an objection to the jury charge as given, instructing the jury that they could award plaintiff damages for pain and suffering, or to the corresponding question on the verdict sheet, and, indeed, defendant raised no objection at trial to the introduction of evidence regarding the mental and emotional disturbance caused by plaintiffs detention (43 Misc 3d at 64).After Defendant exhausted his appeals, on January 22, 2015, Plaintiff served upon Defendant an information subpoena pursuant to CPLR §5224(a)(3) (Pl Exh A [the "Subpoena"]). Plaintiff contends that Defendant never responded to the Subpoena and, in any event, should update any response to include new assets because “Defendant’s lot in life seems to have improved” (Pl Reply at 2).1 Defendant responds that he has provided full disclosure but, in any event, is willing to supplement that disclosure (Def Aff
