Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 19, 2023

Criscuolo v. Brandow

Judge
Ona Wang
Docket
1:23-cv-02406
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Criscuolo v. Brandow: Judge Wang granted sealing, denied counsel disqualification, and denied ECF Nos. 9 and 18 as moot.

Who this affects

Petitioner Anthony Criscuolo’s requests were affected: his motion to seal was granted, his motion to disqualify counsel was denied, and ECF Nos. 9 and 18 were denied as moot. Respondent Stephen G. Brandow’s letter response to the sealing motion was noted by the court.

What happened

Criscuolo v. Brandow concerned several requests filed by Petitioner Anthony Criscuolo, including a request to seal materials and a request to disqualify counsel.

Although Criscuolo was represented by counsel, he filed the disqualification request without counsel. The court relied on precedent stating that a represented party has no right to add personal filings to the lawyer’s work.

Judge Ona T. Wang granted the motion to seal, denied the motion to disqualify counsel, and denied ECF Nos. 9 and 18 as moot. She directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF Nos. 9, 11, 18, and 22.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Criscuolo v. Brandow · No. 1:23-cv-02406
Judge
Ona Wang
Date
Oct. 19, 2023

Motions and Rulings

The court considered Petitioner Anthony Criscuolo’s motion to seal and Respondent Stephen G. Brandow’s letter response. The court granted the motion to seal, identified as ECF No. 11.

The court also considered Criscuolo’s motion to disqualify counsel, identified as ECF Nos. 22–24. The opinion states that Criscuolo was represented by counsel but filed this motion without counsel. The court denied ECF No. 22, citing a Second Circuit decision holding that a person represented by counsel has no right to supplement the lawyer’s work with selected personal filings.

The court denied ECF Nos. 9 and 18 as moot, meaning those matters no longer required a ruling. The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF Nos. 9, 11, 18, and 22.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.