Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The New York Stock Exchange was ordered Friday to cease “maintaining” the security perimeter it established in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the nearby World Trade Center unless it first gets an explicit delegation of police authority from New York City. Acting Justice Walter B. Tolub also barred exchange security guards from conducting searches, which involve bomb sniffing dogs, of vehicles passing through seven intersections surrounding exchange offices in lower Manhattan. The ruling, however, by its own terms, will not take effect until the end of this week. The decision will be published Thursday. The injunction was required, Justice Tolub ruled, because the stock exchange, as a private entity, has undertaken the “‘occupation’ of a security zone that encompasses a substantial portion of lower Manhattan” without required governmental authorization. “The spectre of private police forces patrolling public streets is unacceptable, and private entities may not take the law into their own hands, no matter how well intentioned,” he wrote in Wall Street Garage Parking Corp. v. New York Stock Exchange Inc., 103343/04. Justice Tolub’s order requires the stock exchange to remove trucks that are used as blockades at the seven intersections unless the city provides the required authorization or a stay is obtained from the Appellate Division. In his decision Friday, Justice Tolub issued an injunction but said it would not take effect until five days after service of the order upon the exchange. Stephen F. Harmon, who represented the nearby garage that challenged the security barriers, said the judge’s order also was served Friday, which means the five business-day grace period expires this Friday. The city could grant the required authority to the exchange before then or take over the checkpoints itself. But even if the city should decide to authorize the exchange to carry out the police function, Justice Tolub questioned whether such a delegation would be legal. Ray Pellecchia, a spokesman for the exchange, said that an appeal will be filed and a stay sought within the five-day period. He added that the Police Department submitted an affidavit supporting the stock exchange’s position. The Police Department asserted that the barriers are “essential to the security” of the exchange, and that if required by the court, police officers will be deployed at the checkpoints, said Mr. Pellecchia. Both sides agreed, Justice Tolub wrote, that the security zone around the exchange was initially established by the Police Department in response to the terror attack. The problem, he noted, was that sometime afterward � “and it is unclear as to when this happened” � control of the barricades at each of the seven intersections was transferred to stock exchange security personnel. Mr. Harmon, of Jenkins Gilchrist Parker & Chapin, represented the Wall Street Garage Parking Corp., which brought the challenge claiming damage to its business. The garage, which is located on Exchange Place between William and Broad streets, claimed that the disruption of its business became particularly calamitous in early February, when the city began construction at the William Street end of the block. Because of the construction, the garage complained, the only way motorists could use the facility was to pass through a check point guarding the secure zone. From Feb. 21 to March 2, the garage reported average daily use by 38 vehicles. Before Sept. 11, 2001, the garage said, it had an average daily census of 150 to 160 vehicles. Should the work be completed as scheduled by the end of this month, a mootness issue could arise. But Justice Tolub’s ruling turned on an issue broader than the specific economic injury experienced by the garage. Instead, he zeroed in on the “irreparable injury” caused by the unauthorized private policing of a broad swath of lower Manhattan. Douglas Henkin of Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy, represented the exchange.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.