NYC citizen Jeff Boyle called the CEO of Valley National Bank at home to complain about some illegal construction noise. The CEO Gerald “Don’t You Know Who I Am” Lipkin, rather than apologizing for the racket, “flipped out.”
According to the NY Post, Boyle’s version of the story goes like this: After numerous calls to 311 about the noise, Boyle called Lipkin’s listed number to complain. Lipkin “flipped out” and shouted, “I have no control over what goes on! You’re violating my privacy!”
Lipkin then had his security chief contact the NYPD, convincing them to launch an investigation of Mr. Boyle. A detective came sniffing around Boyle’s place asking his neighbors for personal information. We’d call that a far more serious invasion of privacy than simply calling a listed phone number, but that’s us. We’re not important bank CEOs.
Boyle was told by the NYPD that he didn’t actually commit a crime, but was warned, “Don’t do that again.”
Boyle says, “I was stunned. I didn’t do anything illegal. For the CEO of a bank to use the NYPD to get in a pissing match with me, for Gerald Lipkin to try and intimidate me this way, is outrageous.” It certainly is. He adds, “…For the NYPD to waste New York taxpayer dollars over a private matter just because some guy decides to throw his weight around is a violation of public trust.” We agree. Valley National Bank is run by a douchebag of the highest order. —MEGHANN MARCO
FAT CAT’S WRATH AT WAKE-UP CALL [NY Post via Gothamist]
More From Consumerist
-
Officials Investigate Suspicious Wiring In Airplane Bathroom At JFK, No Explosives Found
-
Ride-Share Service Accuses NYC Of Cooking Up Sting Operation To Discourage Legal Activity
-
Congratulations, Jamie Dimon, You’re The Sexiest CEO In America!
-
Data Shows Bank Of America Is Also Bad At Dealing With Credit Card Complaints
-
NYPD Planning To Bait Prescription Pill Thieves With Bottles Containing GPS Trackers
@jeffislouie: “Sure he would. But that’s not apples to apples. He would walk over there, explain that he was the CEO, and they would stop.
So he (the ceo) would have to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Sort of like Jeff would have to go over there and ask them to stop.”
Great Jeff should just walk over to the site and explain how he is the CEO of the company they are doing business for. And when they ask for proof for this obvious lie he would magically pull out something to convince them. Perfect!
The construction company works for the CEO’s bank. Jeff has nothing to do with them making money. Why would they listen to the CEO when he walks over? Because their paychecks depend on his company continuing to pay them on this job. They would lose money if they didn’t. What does Jeff have up his sleeve?
You know that you just proved my point. Right?
“So, why am I upset with you?
Because like many people under 30, you think you know it all. You assume that your way of thinking is correct.”
I never claimed I think I know it all, and I readily admit that I am capable of making mistakes, as I am human. Anyone who tells you different is a liar, plain and simple. And yes, I do assume my way of thinking is correct. You also assume your way of thinking is correct. Everyone in the world assumes their way of thinking is correct because if they assumed it was incorrect they would change their way of thinking until they found a way of thinking that they believed to be correct. No one holds a belief that they believe to be incorrect because they easily have the option of changing it. If you have a problem with me thinking I am right, then why do you not have a problem with you thinking you are right? Could it be that you think that you are correct in such a view?
Yes, I was taught that two wrongs don’t make a right but are you really saying that doing something rude is a wrong akin to committing a crime? It is rude to call people at 5am. I AGREE! I have never thought different, but there are degrees of necessity, something it seems you do not quite understand or believe. Is it more necessary to stop a crime or to not be rude? I think stopping crime is more important. If all I had to do to stop a nuclear holocaust was to inconvenience one person it is worth it, but you say two wrongs don’t make a right. Granted that is an extreme example, but it fits. I am not saying making construction noise is anything akin to nukes, but the analogy is apt in that there is order of necessity. There is clear order of priority in that situation, and I believe that there is clear order of priority with calling the CEO at 5am to stop a crime. Now I would agree with you if it were the case that making phone calls at 5am was illegal. However you have one action that is illegal and one that is an inconvenience. I think the crime is more important.
You know what, you are PROBABLY right about your situation whereby it would take hours for the CEO to do anything about the noise even if he wanted to.
But for you to say it is the ONLY way is fantasy as well. You would have to say it was IMPOSSIBLE that he had ever met the head of the contractors and gotten his number in his cell phone, or that he had the person’s card, or that the VP of Finance that sets their budget or the COO that coordinates the deals with them also could not possibly have the contractor’s number. If you are honestly saying those situations are literally impossible, then you are living in a fantasy world. You are right, your scenario is more realistic, but that does not make it fact. Mine is not fact either, but I did not have to paint reality, I only have to show the possibility.
“I find this ‘discussion’ to be insane and rooted firmly in the imagination of a 24 year old with either no, or very very little, experience in the corporate world.”
Well since you took offense at:
“JustThisGuy says:
“your suggestion is mind-bogglingly selfish and, to a certain extent, completely idiotic.”
Good job, champ.”
and then:
“How incredibly selfish and ignorant “
Wouldn’t that be the pot calling the kettle black? Someone calls your argument “completely idiotic” and you get mad, then you turn around and call someone else’s argument “insane and rooted firmly in the imagination of a 24 year old”. Different wording, same exact meaning. (and yes, I know they called you selfish as well, but if that was the part you took offense at you would have just quoted that part and would not have included both quotes)
Also, by you saying that, it again directly implies that “You assume that your way of thinking is correct” because my arguments must “be insane”.
I readily admit I am human and prone to error, however I do not think I am wrong at the moment. If I did, then I would change my opinion. I have changed my opinion in the past, given sufficient evidence. Can you say the same of this entire paragraph for yourself?
“I get it – you think it is appropriate and reasonable to call someone at 5 am.”
Clearly you don’t get it. I don’t think it is appropriate to call someone at 5am. But it is EVEN LESS appropriate to allow criminal activities to continue. Do you really think it is better to let crimes go on then bother someone in a legal manner who could possibly do something about it?
“Two wrongs do not make a right.”
No, but letting one wrong continue doesn’t make a right either. And if the second wrong is not as bad as the first, and would make the first stop, then it should be done.
At this point it really seems like you must be the CEO, despite what you say about being from Chicago. It is fairly clear you are angry, despite saying that you are not (even though you said “So, why am I upset with you?” yes, angry and upset are different, but unless you are the CEO why do you have any emotional investment in the argument?) Throwing insults at me and my intelligence when I had done nothing against you, angry.
And as for your “catchy one liners” haven’t you even heard that “even the oldest man can learn from the youngest child”? Way to discount people based on age, very open minded of you.
As for replying to this post: don’t. I am tired of your unwarranted insults and your illogical rejection of opposing views rather than actually pleasantly continuing to debating them. If you didn’t want to continue the debate further, you could have simply said, “Well, it seems we have different opinions and lets leave it at that” without injecting insults into your response. Learn how to be courteous in a debate then come back, till then we don’t need your hate-mongering around here.
Well, it seems we have different opinions and lets leave it at that.
Hate mongering?
Grow up.
That is the most ridiculous nonsense you’ve put down so far…
Learn how to have a debate?
You mean by staying on topic?
And it is Jeff’s civic duty to call the CEO to stop a crime?
Please.
It’s a noise violation, not a rape or murder.
And the CEO, as we both seem to agree, likely couldn’t have stopped it immediately.
My ‘insults’ are unwarranted?
Like when I pointed out that Jeff could walk over and ask them to stop?
Or that he call the company during business hours to complain?
Maybe what got under your skin was the fact that I still think that calling a CEO at 5 am over this is unreasonable.
I don’t know.
But hey, let’s try to steer away from paranoia (‘it seems like you must be the CEO’). Well, you caught me. What can I say. As the CEO of a multi-billion dollar bank in New York, I like to spend my time debating with 24 year old who can’t understand that the article was pointing out that it was wrong to use to police to try to intimidate someone who called ME at 5 am.
No, you are right. Let’s debate the details ad nauseaum, irrespective of the facts or the reality of the situation.
It’s fun, and productive.
“I readily admit I am human and prone to error, however I do not think I am wrong at the moment. If I did, then I would change my opinion. I have changed my opinion in the past, given sufficient evidence. Can you say the same of this entire paragraph for yourself?”
Yes. But so far, your argument is that the CEO can do something about it. We agree. You think he can do something at 5 am. I think he can’t do anything until business hours and when he is working.
“I don’t think it is appropriate to call someone at 5am.”
So you finally admit that. Good for you! I’m proud of you.
“And as for your “catchy one liners” haven’t you even heard that “even the oldest man can learn from the youngest child”?”
You mean ‘two wrongs don’t make a right” isn’t good enough?
“Wouldn’t that be the pot calling the kettle black? Someone calls your argument “completely idiotic” and you get mad, then you turn around and call someone else’s argument “insane and rooted firmly in the imagination of a 24 year old”. Different wording, same exact meaning. “
So you admit that it is rooted in your imagination and you have little or no corporate experience?
The discussion is insane because it doesn’t matter and we are arguing about the minutia. The rest is a fact. If you had experience in a large company, you would understand that the larger a company becomes, the slower it is to react.
hence, a 5 am call likely wouldn’t result in anything but what it resulted in – a pissed off CEO (at the guy who called, not the contractor) and a citizen who accomplished nothing.
“Is it more necessary to stop a crime or to not be rude? I think stopping crime is more important. “
Cops stop crimes.
CEO’s make high level decisions and plan long term direction. Your argument is a fallacy.
“Great Jeff should just walk over to the site and explain how he is the CEO of the company they are doing business for. And when they ask for proof for this obvious lie he would magically pull out something to convince them. Perfect!”
That’s a fallcy too – it’s called a strawman argument.
Jeff should have walked over and said he is a resident and that construction is not allowed before 7 am. Then, he should ask them to stop.
That has a much better chance of stopping the noise (immediately too) than calling a CEO at 5 am.
“You know what, you are PROBABLY right about your situation whereby it would take hours for the CEO to do anything about the noise even if he wanted to.”
Again, you agree with me.
So – why keep arguing?
Oh. You want to win.
Got it.
So here you go – you win.
And I don’t think it should be limited to noise violations at 5 am.
I think anytime any company does you wrong in any way, you should call the CEO at home – no matter what time it is – to complain.
That’ll teach them for working for a company to provide a service or good!
“Well, it seems we have different opinions and lets leave it at that.”
By my count, I said that, what – 4 or 5 times already?
And you keep coming back here to argue with me, all the while trotting out fallacies and unrealistic arguments.
Why are YOU so mad?
Love,
The CEO of some bank in New York.
This is my first post. Lipkin is a complete self-absorbed idiot. He doesn’t care about his employees. I work for a company that Valley Bank acquired. We haven’t had a decent raise in 5 years and he gets a multi million dollar raise every year!!! I couldn’t tell you the last time we got a bonus. He has to approve everything!!! It is the little people in his company that are making him rich. The guy called 311 and the cops and got no where. What he did was great and most of us wish we had balls enough to do what he did. He stood up for his community and should be applauded for it. Lipkin broke his own code of conduct in the Valley handbook and should be fired by his OWN GUIDELINES!!!
@jeffislouie
The irony of your blathering on about courtesy and manners when you yourself display exactly the opposite is apparently beyond you.
@ quite a few of you…
Not sure, but in some cities, if you call 911 for a 311 issue, they will fine you. If you call 311, however, and are transferred to 911, it is a different story.
Also, some cities I have lived in say 311 is a “dispatch during normal business hours” type of line. Other cities, it is 24 dispatch.
And a couple small cities I lived in did not have a 311.
So, it all depends on the local area.
As for calling the CEO, I refuse to comment on the right or wrong of the issue. But I can say, from speaking with my own companies CEO, he has the power to get stuff done. He has at least a few numbers at home. I’ve seen some of the managing partners called at 3 am, just to have them start calling other people.
Because a crisis can erupt at any time, they, and the CEO, tend to have the numbers of people who can get things done, no matter the hour.
Whether or not they want to do it is another matter.
In the end, it does not matter whether or not the call to the CEO should have made. The real issue, in my eyes at least, is that the bank CEO somehow got the NYPD to investigate what was not a crime. That is misappropriation of police resources. If the NYPD knew that it was not a crime when they began investigating, and if the bank was truthful, they should have, the police may be guilty of harassment and intimidation. If the bank was not truthful, they should be charged with giving false information to the police, obstruction of justice, or something along those lines.
It is absolutely unacceptable for the NYPD to acting as a private security force for a private company. Sadly, it seems to be well in character for them. (Making it their mission to suppress the message of legitimate protestors is just one of many such examples).
@lamorevincera: Invading privacy to call at 5am? Not by a longshot. I turn my phones off when I sleep. Not hard to do.
@FinanceGuru:
“The irony of your blathering on about courtesy and manners when you yourself display exactly the opposite is apparently beyond you.”
I guess. But seeing as I calmly and politely tried to explain myself before being baited into a fight (remember when YOU asked me what planet I was from?), I think my response, while over the top, still displayed some restraint.
Fortunately, this will be my last post on the subject.
Admittedly, I lost my cool.
But can you REALLY blame me?
I know, it’s hip and cool (especially around here) to be anti-corporation. I get it. Really.
But the reality is that there is only one aspect to this story that seems to deviate from the norm – the head of security for the company called the cops and used his ties to harrass Jeff.
Other than that, the situation bore itself out exactly as I would have predicted.
A phone call to the CEO resulted in no change, no resolution, and nothing getting fixed.
What boggles my mind is how people still seem to believe, regardless of the evidence presented, that calling the CEO at 5 am was a good idea.
So my point is this, and then I’m done:
When determining which way to attempt to accomplish something, one can either do what ‘feels good’ or they can choose to do something that has a likelihood of acheiving their goal.
In this case, calling the CEO ‘felt good’, but got nothing done.
So please, feel free to continue to chide me for coming up with reasonable ways to resolve this issue.
Clearly, the 5 am call worked. Right?
Oh. Wait. Not so much.
Moving along – to those of you who think a 911 call is unwarranted and can get you fined over something like this….
I walked up to a cop eating dinner at a burger joint I was picking up dinner at and asked him. I gave him the exact scenario as described in the article. Know what he said?
Call 911, tell them where the noise violation is occuring. They can go over there and tell the construction crew to stop. They then would call the building department and file a complaint. The building department can then go down to the site during normal business hours and deliver a citation. That’s what he said. But hey, 5 am calls to the CEO make you FEEL better….
And there was a car parked in my alley this week. It showed up Wednesday morning and was there when I got home on Friday night. (I have a double wide alley).
I called 911. Three times. I didn’t get fined. And they towed the car.
@ jeffislouis:
Rationalization is a pretty “feel good” response too, isn’t it? Just sayin’.
You called somebody else on a purported strawman argument, so how about copping to using unsupported anecdotal evidence (i.e., asking a cop at a restaurant)?
As long as anecdotal evidence works, I’ll relate that I’ve made a call to a CEO in a somewhat similar situation, and it was resolved (i.e., they cut out the noise.)
I’m not anti-corporation. (Frankly, some of my most important clients are corporations.) I’m a results-oriented person. Since I’ve done this before — and achieved the desired result — it sounds pretty damn reasonable to me.