Celli v. New York City
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-09743
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Celli v. New York City, Judge Cronan denied Lucio Celli’s emergency motion to stay proceedings, calling it vexatious and frivolous.
Lucio Celli and the proceedings covered by his emergency motion for a stay.
What happened
In Celli v. New York City, Lucio Celli, representing himself, asked the court to immediately pause proceedings in the appeal and underlying case before any further order was issued. He alleged judicial misconduct, evidence suppression, conflicts of interest, and manipulation of the appellate record.
The motion also alleged that politically connected people had influenced rulings and interfered with employment rights, health-care access, and wages. The filing referred to several other cases and court personnel.
Judge Cronan denied the motion as vexatious and frivolous. The order also stated that Case No. 25-CV-2030 was an unrelated product-liability case, Hoey v. The 3M Company.
The detailed version
- Celli v. New York City · No. 1:24-cv-09743
- John Cronan
- May 5, 2025
Motion and allegations
Lucio Celli, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an emergency motion seeking an immediate stay—that is, a pause—in the appeal and the underlying case before the court issued any further order. The motion cited Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(2) and the court’s inherent authority.
Celli alleged judicial misconduct, suppression of evidence, conflicts of interest, and manipulation of the appellate record involving court personnel and Randi Weingarten. The motion also alleged misuse of public office and political retaliation, asserting that Weingarten had used her influence to cause adverse rulings and suppress employment rights, health-care access, and wages.
Court’s ruling
The court denied the motion as vexatious and frivolous. The order stated that Case No. 25-CV-2030 was a product-liability case captioned Hoey v. The 3M Company and had no relation to this case.
Disposition
The emergency motion for a stay was denied. The opinion text supplied is visibly corrupted and refers to several docket numbers, so the relationship among the referenced proceedings is unclear beyond the court’s statement that Case No. 25-CV-2030 was unrelated.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.