Rivera v Lutheran Med. Ctr.

Annotate this Case
Rivera v Lutheran Med. Ctr. 2010 NY Slip Op 04168 [73 AD3d 891] May 11, 2010 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Felix Rivera, Respondent,
v
Lutheran Medical Center et al., Defendants. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Nonparty Appellant.

—[*1] Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael A. Bloom [pro hac vice], Kevin T. Rover, Debra Morway, and Amanda N. Slatin of counsel), nonparty appellant pro se.

Alan J. Rich, LLC, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.

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 [2007]; Vegetable Kingdom, Inc. v Katzen, 653 F Supp 917, 923 n 4 [1987]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Chambers, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 22 Misc 3d 178.]

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.