New York Supreme Court Justice Kathy J. King signed an order on June 4, 2026, suspending the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff "Noah Doe" and others seeking ownership claims over approximately 39,069 dormant Bitcoin wallets, prohibiting any default judgment from proceeding, pending a review of amicus briefs at a hearing scheduled for July 14.

## I. Basic Case Information

Plaintiff Noah Doe and two Wyoming-based companies claim ownership of about 39,069 long-unused Bitcoin addresses under New York's Personal Property Law Section 7-B (Lost Property Law), asserting these wallets have been "abandoned." The plaintiffs sent notices via on-chain OP_RETURN messages to the addresses, requesting holders to claim within 90 days; failure to respond is considered abandonment. According to Galaxy Research, these addresses collectively hold approximately 3.8 million BTC, valued at roughly $234B to $293 billion at current market prices, including addresses related to the 2011 Mt. Gox hacking incident and suspected early-mining addresses from the Satoshi era.

## II. Why the Judge Stopped the Case

New York attorney Ian R. Cohen submitted an amicus brief arguing:

1. Wrong Application of Law — The New York Lost Property Law applies to tangible property, not to blockchain addresses that are always publicly visible; "simply inactive ≠ abandoned."
2. No Possessory Rights — The plaintiffs lack private keys; even if the court rules in their favor, they cannot control the assets.
3. State Law Priority — The 2022 revision of New York’s Escheat Law classifies dormant virtual currencies under the State Comptroller’s management, not private claims.
4. Service and Jurisdiction Flaws — Notices via OP_RETURN and press releases do not constitute constitutional service, and Bitcoin has no clear "legal domicile"; most wallet holders are non-residents of New York.

Based on this, Judge Kathy J. King issued a stay order, freezing all proceedings including default judgments, with a hearing scheduled for July 14, 2026, to determine whether to accept the amicus brief.

## III. Market and Industry Impact

Following the lawsuit's exposure, some addresses named in the case showed on-chain activity — several addresses dormant since 2011 recently transferred BTC, indicating holders are still active. If the plaintiffs’ theory is adopted, anyone could use on-chain analysis tools plus alerts to "claim" any dormant self-custodied wallet, fundamentally threatening the property rights of all Bitcoin holders. Currently, the crypto community widely views this case as a landmark test of the boundaries of digital asset ownership rights.