A New York judge has stayed a lawsuit that aims to establish ownership over nearly 40,000 bitcoin wallets. The Block reports the case also triggered a new proposed amicus brief, with a July hearing set to consider it.
The lawsuit’s core theory leans on New York’s “lost-and-found statute.” The brief backing the pause argues that this statute cannot be used to claim so-called “lost” assets when the assets are controlled by private keys. The Block says the brief was filed by attorney Ian R. Cohen.
What the court paused
The Block frames the matter as a fight over whether bitcoin wallets can be treated like property that can be claimed through a lost-property legal pathway. The judge’s decision to stay the case freezes the litigation while the court weighs the proposed amicus brief.
That pause matters procedurally. A stay slows every downstream step in the dispute, including any discovery moves that could expand or narrow who can influence how the wallets are handled and what legal standards the court applies.
The amicus brief’s key argument
Cohen’s brief says New York’s lost-and-found statute cannot be stretched to cover assets that are not truly “lost” in the legal sense. The reason, according to the brief as reported by The Block, is control by private keys.
In other words, the brief treats private-key control as a practical and legal barrier to a “lost assets” claim. That stance challenges the idea that wallet ownership can be reassigned via a statutory mechanism when someone still has the cryptographic ability to move the funds.
If the court accepts that framing, it would narrow the statute’s usefulness in disputes tied to self-custodied crypto. If it rejects it, litigants may get more room to argue that “lost” can be interpreted broadly even in key-controlled systems.
July hearing is the next concrete deadline
The Block reports the July hearing will address the proposed amicus brief. That’s the immediate milestone readers should watch, because the court’s view on whether the brief gets considered can affect the shape of the legal arguments that follow.
An amicus filing does not decide the case by itself. But it can influence how judges understand the governing law before parties spend more time and money on motions and discovery.
Why this matters beyond this one wallet count
Cases like this test how traditional property doctrines map onto crypto reality. Self-custody breaks the clean chain of custody that courts often expect in disputes involving physical or bank-held assets.
Cohen’s brief, as summarized by The Block, pushes the court to recognize private keys as the pivot point. That could make “lost-and-found” claims harder to run in future cases involving wallets where someone retains the ability to sign transactions.
For now, the story is less about whether bitcoin is “recoverable” and more about which legal lever plaintiffs can pull. The judge’s stay keeps that question in focus, pending the July hearing.