GLEB BORISOVICH RYBKIN vs ARINA KIRILINA A/K/A ARINA RYBKIN

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 5D23-2666 LT Case No. 2020-31158-FMCI _____________________________ GLEB BORISOVICH RYBKIN, Appellant, v. ARINA KIRILINA a/k/a Arina Rybkin, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County. Stasia Warren, Judge. Gleb Borisovich Rybkin, Moreno Valley, CA, pro se. No Appearance for Appellee. April 9, 2024 HARRIS, J. Gleb Borisovich Rybkin (“Former Husband”) appeals the trial court’s August 4, 2023 order adopting the general magistrate’s recommended order granting Arina Kirilina’s (“Former Wife”) motion for civil contempt/enforcement and the trial court’s August 9, 2023 order denying his motion for disqualification. Because a petition for writ of prohibition is the proper procedure for appellate review of an order denying a motion to disqualify, we treat that portion of the appeal as such. See Rainey v. Rainey, 702 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Former Husband challenges the factual findings made by the general magistrate and adopted by the trial court and the court’s subsequent denial of his motion for disqualification. However, the record on appeal contains no transcripts from the hearings, preventing this court from reviewing the evidence presented below to determine whether the factual findings were sufficiently supported. See Duke v. Duke, 211 So. 3d 1078, 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979)). Because Former Husband has failed to demonstrate any error below, we affirm the order on appeal and deny the petition for writ of prohibition. AFFIRMED; PETITION DENIED. JAY and PRATT, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.