UNITED STATES OF AMERICA before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Rel. No. 38770 / June 25, 1997 Admin. Proc. File No. 3-9256 In the Matter of VINCENT POLISENO ORDER DENYING INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Administrative proceedings were instituted against Vincent Poliseno on February 24, 1997. On May 14, 1997, Poliseno moved to strike ten of the fifteen witnesses that the Division of Enforcement proposed to call for the June 3, 1997 hearing on the merits. In his motion, Poliseno argued that it would violate due process and fundamental fairness to permit the Division to call these witnesses because (i) the Division waited until May 13, 1997, twenty days before the start of the hearing, to disclose the identity of the witnesses; and (ii) the Division had previously indicated that it would call only five witnesses at the hearing. At a prehearing conference on May 15, 1997, the law judge granted Poliseno's motion. On May 16, 1997, the Division filed an "Emergency Interlocutory Appeal" of the law judge's order. On May 19, 1997, the District Attorney for New York County, New York, informed the law judge that his office was conducting a criminal investigation of Poliseno and requested, with the support of the Division, a stay of these administrative proceedings pending the conclusion of that investigation. Poliseno consented to the stay request, but asked that the law judge's order striking the Division's witnesses be enforced whenever the stay is lifted. On May 27, 1997, the law judge issued an order "postpon[ing]" proceedings in this matter. In his order, the law judge stated that the postponement "renders Respondent's Motion to Strike moot." The law judge added that Poliseno is free to renew his motion to strike when proceedings are resumed and that he will rule on such motion at that time. Notwithstanding the law judge's order of May 27, 1997, the Division has not withdrawn its interlocutory appeal of the May 15 order. As an initial matter, we note that our Rules of Practice provide for interlocutory review of hearing officer orders under only "extraordinary circumstances." <(1)> Our Rules further provide that a ruling submitted for review ordinarily must be certified by the law judge. <(2)> This ruling was not so certified. <(3)> Moreover, we, <(1)> See Rule 400 of our Rules of Practice. <(2)> Id. like the law judge, believe that the postponement of these proceedings has mooted the issue raised by Poliseno in his Motion to Strike. Under the circumstances, it is appropriate to deny the Division's appeal. <(4)> Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Division of Enforcement's Emergency Interlocutory Appeal from Ruling of Administrative Law Judge Barring Witnesses be, and it hereby is, denied. By the Commission. Jonathan G. Katz Secretary <(3)>(...continued) <(3)> Nor is it clear that the Division could have satisfied the requirements for certification had it sought to have the law judge do so. <(4)> Because we conclude that the appeal is moot, we do not express any view as to the merits of the law judge's May 15, 1997 ruling or the resulting relief. Poliseno's motion for leave to file a response to the reply brief of the Division is hereby granted. The Division earlier was granted an extension of time until June 6, 1997 to file its reply brief. ======END OF PAGE 2======