Look, if you’re a cop in New York, you probably thought you were just doing your job. Maybe you even liked the extra cash from working security at a big event. But if you get hurt and your lawyer dares to sue the place that hired you — well, that’s apparently grounds for a venue ban. For you. For your entire law firm. For the foreseeable future.
This is what happened to John Scola, a lawyer who, according to reports, often represents police officers. His crime? Representing an NYPD officer, John Przybyszewski, who claims he suffered permanent spinal injuries during a boxing match at Madison Square Garden last year. The suit alleges the Garden’s operational decisions put the officer “directly in harm’s way.” And in response, Madison Square Garden and other James Dolan-owned venues have apparently decided Scola and anyone associated with his firm are persona non grata.
So, what does this mean for the average Joe, or Jane, or whoever else just wants to catch a Rangers game or a concert? It means if you’re involved in any legal spat with MSG, even if it’s just your lawyer doing their job, you might find yourself on the wrong side of their increasingly sophisticated facial recognition tech. It’s not just about keeping out terrorists anymore; it’s apparently about keeping out anyone who dares to sue. The Garden’s already infamous practice of banning entire law firms if one attorney has a dispute isn’t just continuing; it’s apparently evolving.
A Cop’s Dilemma: Duty vs. Venue Access
Here’s the situation: Officer Przybyszewski was working a paid detail at an MSG boxing match. Things got messy. A rapper, Lil Tjay, and his entourage apparently got into it with Garden security. Przybyszewski claims he was knocked down, injured, and later diagnosed with significant, potentially permanent, spinal injuries. He sued Lil Tjay and Madison Square Garden.
His lawyer, Scola, filed the suit in February. Five weeks later, MSG sent Scola a letter. It stated, “Any tickets to MSG Venues are hereby revoked.” A polite way of saying, “You’re banned, pal.” Scola, for his part, seems remarkably unfazed. He told WIRED it’s “a little bit petty,” but he’s there to represent his client.
And that’s the rub. The Garden uses off-duty NYPD officers to bolster its security, essentially turning city employees into its private security force. But when one of those officers gets hurt on the job and seeks legal recourse against the venue that hired him, the venue’s response is to ban the officer’s lawyer. It’s a curious form of gratitude for services rendered.
Facial Recognition: The New Bouncer?
This ban isn’t just about a stern letter. It’s part of a broader pattern of surveillance. Madison Square Garden has been expanding its use of facial recognition technology. James Dolan, the famously litigious owner, claims it’s for security. He told a local news station that the list is to identify “terrorists.” Yet, the NYPD hasn’t shared any data with the Garden, even as the Garden has, according to reports, added an NYPD officer’s photo to its database. This is despite the fact that attorney general Letitia James is “closely reviewing the latest reporting on Madison Square Garden surveillance tactics.”
What’s particularly galling is the idea that the Garden, which benefits from NYPD officers working paid details, is now using surveillance tech that could potentially flag those same officers if they happen to be involved in a legal dispute with the venue. It’s a tangled web of public service and private enterprise, with the average citizen often caught in the middle.
This isn’t just about one lawyer and one cop. This is about the power of a massive private venue to control access and silence dissent, or at least legal challenges. It’s about a system that, on one hand, relies on public servants and, on the other, punishes them when they dare to seek accountability. It’s a classic case of the powerful using their resources to dictate terms, and for the rest of us, it’s a stark reminder that your right to attend an event might depend on who you sue.
“New Yorkers should be able to go to a game or a concert without their rights being violated.”
That quote from New York attorney general Letitia James hangs in the air, a stark contrast to the Garden’s actions. It makes you wonder if the definition of “rights being violated” is starting to include the right to sue your employer without getting banned from your favorite sports arena.
Is This a Slippery Slope?
This whole episode feels less like a security measure and more like an aggressive defense tactic. If a venue can simply ban legal representation, what’s to stop them from banning anyone who speaks out critically? It certainly raises questions about the boundaries of corporate power and due process, even in the private sector. The line between running a safe venue and operating a fiefdom where legal challenges are met with swift, absolute exclusion seems to be blurring. And if you’re a lawyer who takes on powerful clients, you might want to start brushing up on your impersonation skills – you never know when you might need to sneak into your own client’s event.
🧬 Related Insights
- Read more: Fox Tempest: How Malware Found a Legitimate Address
- Read more: Bitter APT’s ProSpy Spyware Hits Mideast Journalists Hard
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Madison Square Garden’s facial recognition system do? MSG’s facial recognition system is used to identify individuals entering its venues, with the stated purpose of preventing “dangerous actors” and “terrorists” from gaining entry. However, its application has come under scrutiny for potentially being used to enforce legal blacklists.
Can an individual be banned from MSG for their lawyer’s actions? Based on this incident, it appears Madison Square Garden is capable of banning individuals and even entire law firms if an attorney representing a client is involved in a legal dispute with the venue. The ban on lawyer John Scola suggests this practice continues.
Why would MSG ban a lawyer? Madison Square Garden appears to ban lawyers, and by extension their clients and firms, as a retaliatory measure for filing lawsuits against the venue. This practice is seen by critics as an attempt to deter legal challenges and maintain control over disputes.
