Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rivera v. Lutheran Medical Center

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT


May 11, 2010

FELIX RIVERA, RESPONDENT,
v.
LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS; MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, NONPARTY-APPELLANT.

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.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.

(Index No. 22050/05)

DECISION & ORDER

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.

20100511

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.