Criscuolo v. Brandow

S.D. New York

Criscuolo v. Brandow

DecidedOctober 19, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-02406

StatusUnknown

This text of Criscuolo v. Brandow (Criscuolo v. Brandow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Criscuolo v. Brandow, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------x ANTHONY CRISCUOLO, : : Petitioner, : 23-CV-02406 (JPC) (OTW) : -against- : ORDER : STEPHEN G. BRANDOW, : Respondent. : : : --------------------------------------------------------------x ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge: The Court is in receipt of Petitioner’s motion to seal and Respondent’s letter response. (ECF Nos. 11 and 15). ECF 11 is GRANTED. The Court is also in receipt of Petitioner’s motion to disqualify counsel. (ECF Nos. 22-24). Petitioner, who is represented by counsel, filed this motion pro se. See ECF 25 at 1 n.1. ECF 22 is DENIED. See United States v. Hage, 74 F.4th 90, 93 (2d Cir. 2023) (holding that a defendant has “no right to ‘hybrid’ representation in which he is represented by counsel but supplements his lawyer’s work with selected pro se submissions.”) (citation omitted). ECF Nos. 9 and 18 are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF Nos. 9, 11, 18, and 22.

SO ORDERED.

s/ Ona T. Wang Dated: October 18, 2023 Ona T. Wang New York, New York United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------x ANTHONY CRISCUOLO, : : Petitioner, : 23-CV-02406 (JPC) (OTW) : -against- : ORDER : STEPHEN G. BRANDOW, : Respondent. : : : --------------------------------------------------------------x ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge: The Court is in receipt of Petitioner’s motion to seal and Respondent’s letter response. (ECF Nos. 11 and 15). ECF 11 is GRANTED. The Court is also in receipt of Petitioner’s motion to disqualify counsel. (ECF Nos. 22-24). Petitioner, who is represented by counsel, filed this motion pro se. See ECF 25 at 1 n.1. ECF 22 is DENIED. See United States v. Hage, 74 F.4th 90, 93 (2d Cir. 2023) (holding that a defendant has “no right to ‘hybrid’ representation in which he is represented by counsel but supplements his lawyer’s work with selected pro se submissions.”) (citation omitted). ECF Nos. 9 and 18 are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF Nos. 9, 11, 18, and 22.

SO ORDERED.

s/ Ona T. Wang Dated: October 18, 2023 Ona T. Wang New York, New York United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Criscuolo v. Brandow, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/criscuolo-v-brandow-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack