Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Felix Rivera, respondent, v. Lutheran Medical Center, et al., defendants; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, nonparty-appellant.
Argued-March 1, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for employment discrimination in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, the nonparty Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated October 16, 2008, as, upon determining that it violated former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-103(a)(1) (22 NYCRR 1200.8[a][1] ), now Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 7.3, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to disqualify it from representing certain witnesses in this action.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the contention of the nonparty-appellant, the record supports the Supreme Court's determination that it engaged in acts of solicitation of professional employment, in violation of former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-103(a)(1) (22 NYCRR 1200.8[a][1] ), now Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 7.3. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to disqualify the nonparty-appellant from representing certain witnesses in this action.
The nonparty-appellant's remaining contention regarding the plaintiff's standing is without merit (see Maxon v. Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP, 45 AD3d 1376, 1377; Vegetable Kingdom, Inc. v. Katzen, 653 F Supp 917, 923, n 4).
SKELOS, J.P., SANTUCCI, ANGIOLILLO and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2008-11519 (Index No. 22050 /05)
Decided: May 11, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)