UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
In the Matter of the Application of
JOHN R. D'ALESSIO, and
For Review of Disciplinary Action Taken by the
NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC.
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On April 3, 2003, we issued an opinion sustaining disciplinary action taken by the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE" or "Exchange") against John R. D'Alessio, formerly a member of the Exchange and D'Alessio Securities, Inc. ("D'Alessio Securities" or "the Firm"), formerly a member organization of the Exchange.1 We found, as had the NYSE, that D'Alessio and the Firm violated Section 11(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,2 Exchange Act Rule 11a-1,3 and NYSE Rules 90(a), 95(a), and 111(a) by trading on the floor of the Exchange for an account in which D'Alessio and the Firm had an interest and over which they exercised investment discretion. We further found that D'Alessio and the Firm crossed orders for this account with customer orders in violation of NYSE Rule 91 and violated NYSE Rule 92 by trading in front of, or along with, customer orders. We determined that D'Alessio and the Firm violated NYSE Rule 440 and Exchange Act Rules 17a-3 and 17a-44 by failing to make andpreserve required records. We also sustained the sanctions that the NYSE imposed.
In a letter received by the Commission on July 21, 2003, D'Alessio requests the we "reconsider the sanction imposed on [him]." D'Alessio does not take specific exception to our April 3, 2003 opinion but contends that the sanctions imposed by the NYSE have prevented him from gaining employment and have imposed a financial hardship on him and his family.5
A motion for reconsideration is to be filed within ten days after service of the Commission's order.6 D'Alessio was served with the Commission's order on April 4, 2003. D'Alessio's request that we reconsider his sanctions is untimely.
Even if D'Alessio's request for reconsideration had been filed timely, it would be unavailing. Consistent with our statutory responsibilities, we reviewed the sanctions imposed by the NYSE on D'Alessio and the Firm to determine whether those sanctions were excessive or oppressive, or whether they imposed an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition. We concluded that they were not excessive or oppressive,7 and nothing D'Alessio asserts in his motion for reconsideration calls into question that conclusion. As stated in our opinion, it is our view that, in light of the significant misconduct found, the sanctions imposed by the NYSE are fully warranted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that John R. D'Alessio's motion for reconsideration be, and it hereby is, denied as untimely filed.
By the Commission (Chairman DONALDSON not participating).
Jonathan G. Katz
|1||John R. D'Alessio, Exchange Act Rel. No. 47627 (Apr. 3, 2003), 79 SEC Docket 3627, appeal pending (2d Cir.).|
|2||15 U.S.C. § 78k(a).|
|3||17 C.F.R. § 240.11a-1.|
|4||17 C.F.R. §§ 240.17a-3 and 240.17a-4.|
|5||On May 6, 2003, D'Alessio also filed a notice of appeal from the Commission's decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.|
|6||Rule 470 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.470.|
|7||Section 19(e)(2) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78s(e)(2). D'Alessio and the Firm did not claim, and the record did not show, that the NYSE's action imposed an undue burden on competition|
|Home | Previous Page||