Celli v. New York City
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-09743
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Celli v. New York City, Judge Lehrburger denied Celli’s motion without prejudice as premature.
Lucio Celli’s motion was denied without prejudice. The order concerns the parties’ use of the certified transcript but does not state a broader disposition of the case.
What happened
In Celli v. New York City, Lucio Celli asked the court to accept a certified transcript of an earlier hearing as evidence and to take official notice of it. He argued that the transcript proved he was denied notice and other due-process protections.
The court said there was no basis to consider the evidence at that stage because the request was premature. It denied the motion without prejudice, meaning the order did not prevent Celli from raising the request again later.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger also stated that the court would take official notice of proceedings and court materials when warranted. The order did not decide whether Celli’s due-process claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Celli v. New York City · No. 1:24-cv-09743
- John Cronan
- Mar. 6, 2025
Background
Lucio Celli moved for the court to recognize the evidentiary value of a certified transcript from an August 9, 2023 hearing before Judge Engelmayer. Celli asked the court to treat the transcript as admissible evidence, take official notice of its contents under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, and declare that it proved he had been denied due process, particularly adequate notice, because of Judge Engelmayer’s order.
Ruling
The court denied the motion without prejudice as premature. It stated that there was no basis for considering evidence at that stage and that it would take official notice of proceedings and court materials when warranted.
Effect of the Order
The order did not decide whether the transcript was admissible, whether it proved a due-process violation, or whether Celli’s underlying claims were valid. It ruled only on the timing and present basis for considering the requested evidence.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.