Facts
- Michael Frederick Greene was a member of the State Bar since 1993 and faced disbarment for misconduct in the representation of three clients [lines="13-16"].
- Greene was suspended for failing to respond adequately to the State Bar's Notice of Investigation [lines="18-20"].
- Greene received $10,000 from a father to represent his daughter but became unavailable and failed to attend critical court hearings [lines="38-58"].
- In another case, Greene charged a client $15,000, did not communicate with her post-retainer, and she eventually had to retain new counsel [lines="90-108"].
- Greene also accepted $500 for investigating a client's father's incarceration but did not complete the work nor communicate appropriately with the client [lines="110-136"].
Issues
- Whether Greene's neglect and failure to respond to clients constituted abandonment and misconduct warranting disbarment [lines="23-24"].
- Whether Greene's behavior represented a violation of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct [lines="138-140"].
Holdings
- The court found that Greene's abandonment of clients and failure to engage in the disciplinary process justified disbarment [lines="24-25"].
- The court determined that Greene's actions violated multiple rules, including acting with reasonable diligence and maintaining client communication, supporting the decision for disbarment [lines="272-273"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 Bing Wu v Wunderkind Corp.
September 26, 2024
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 155165/2023 Judge: Judy H. Kim
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PART 04
PRESENT: HON. JUDY H. KIM Justice -------X 155165/2023 INDEX NO. BING WU, 06/30/2023 MOTION DATE Plaintiff, 001 MOTION SEQ. NO. - V - WUNDERKIND CORPORATION D/8/A WUNDERKIND DECISION + ORDER ON TECHNOLOGIES, MOTION
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30
were read on this motion to/for DISMISS
Upon the foregoing documents, defendant's motion to dismiss this action is denied and plaintiffs cross-motion to amend his complaint is granted.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs proposed Second Amended Complaint alleges that plaintiff, a Chinese American man, joined defendant Wunderkind Corporation ("Wunderkind") in August 2013 as an intern (NYSCEF Doc. No. 27 [Second Am. Compl. at ,r,r2, 6]). Between 2013 and 2023, he was repeatedly promoted until he was eventually appointed the Director of Product & Head of Product in 2023 (Id. at if7).
In December 2022, Wunderkind's founder and CEO Ryan Urban was replaced by Bill Ingram. Plaintiff alleges that this change in management "created a climate of fear in which employees knew that they could not voice any concern or disapproval about workplace equality or related policies" and "Asian American employees knew that this was doubly true for them, as they were subject to increased scrutiny, and the slightest imaginary infraction could lead to termination" (Id. at ~18). In February 2023, plaintiff was giving a presentation at Wunderkind's sales onsite when "members of the management muttered audibly that they were unable to understand plaintiff due to his accent" (Id. at i!l 7).
After Urban had left Wunderkind, plaintiff set up a meeting with him "to learn ... about overarching strategies for how to improve email messaging" (Id. at i!l 9). After plaintiffs manager, Tom Spiegelman, learned of this meeting he instructed plaintiff to cancel the meeting and warned him not to share company information with Urban (Id.). On or about March 8, 2023, plaintiff "facilitated" a Zoom meeting between Urban, defendant's former Vice President of Engineering, Namik Abdulzade, and several Wunderkind employees (Id. at ~22). Shortly thereafter, "[he] received an email from HR warning him that his employment would be terminated ifhe continued to involve current employees with ex-leadership, specifically Mr. Urban" (Id. at i!24). HR also began a baseless investigation into whether plaintiff had shared company information with Urban (Id. at i!23)
On April 25, 2023, plaintiff met with another former Wunderkind employee, Molly Bruttomesso, who had managed the Customer Success team (Id. at i!25). On May 1, 2023, defendant's Human Resources Department began another investigation into whether plaintiff had shared company information with Bruttomesso (Id. at ~26). Plaintiff asserts that he had never shared any company information and that this claim was a pretext for an investigation to harass him (Id.).
In response, plaintiff contacted the Human Resources Department to inquire about filing a complaint "regarding the discrimination he was experiencing" and "booked a call to discuss the matter further the next day" (Id. at ,i27). This call was rescheduled from May 2, 2023 to May 3,
155165/2023 WU, BING vs. WUNDERKIND CORPORATION D/B/A WUNDERKIND 2023 (Id.). On May 3, 2023, plaintiffs manager, Spiegelman, met with plaintiff an hour before plaintiffs scheduled meeting with HR and fired him (Id. at if25-28). At that meeting, Spiegelman and the head of defendant's HR department informed plaintiff that the termination was not performance related but due to "a series of bad judgments" by plaintiff (Id. at if29). The following week, John Bates, a white male, joined the company to replace plaintiffs "job function" (Id. at if30).
Plaintiff asserts claims under Executive Law §296 (the New York State Human Rights Law or "NYSHRL") and Administrative Code §8-107 (the New York City Human Rights Law or "NYCHRL") for: (i) employment discrimination based on his race and national origin; and (ii) retaliation. Defendant now moves, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff opposes the motion.
DISCUSSION
As a threshold matter, plaintiffs motion to amend is granted. Generally, "[l]eave to amend
the pleadings shall be freely given absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay"
(Murray v City of New York, 51 AD3d 502, 503 [1st Dept 2008] [internal quotations and citations
omitted]). "[P]laintiff need not establish the merit of [his] proposed new allegations but simply
show that the proffered amendment is not palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit..."
(MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co. Inc.,
In addressing a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the pleading is to be
afforded a liberal construction and the court should accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint,
accord the pleading the benefit of every reasonable inference, and only determine whether the
facts, as alleged, fit within any cognizable legal theory (See Leon v Martinez,
Race and National Origin Discrimination
That branch of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs race and national ongm
discrimination claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL is denied. To state such a claim, plaintiff
must allege that: (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position, (3)
he was adversely or differently treated based on his race in a way that disadvantaged him; and (4)
that the adverse . . . treatment occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of
discrimination"
[1]
(See Hosking v Mem. Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr.,
Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff is a member of a protected class, that he was qualified
for his position, and that he was on May 3, 2023. Defendant argues only that plaintiff has not
alleged that his termination occurred under circumstances permitting an inference of
discrimination. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff has satisfied this standard through his allegations
that defendant's managers made negative comments about his accent (See Demir v Sandoz Inc.,
155 AD3d 464, 466 [1st Dept 2017] [plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to show that she was
subjected to adverse employment actions under circumstances giving rise to an inference of
discrimination, including, inter alia, that she and other women, including other Muslim women,
had been subjected to abusive and derogatory remarks and questions about her accent]), that his
position was filled by someone outside of his protected class (See ~ ' Ruiz v Armstrong, 207
NYS3d 374 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2024]), and that he was subjected to a pretextual investigation
based on false allegations (See Petit v Dept. of Educ. of City of New York,
Defendant's argument that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating plaintiff's employment, based upon his repeated communications with various former Wunderkind employees despite instructions not to do so, "presents a potential rebuttal argument to a prima facie case of employment discrimination, which is misplaced at this early procedural juncture" (Petit v Dept. of Educ. of City of New York, 177 AD3d 402, 404 [1st Dept 2019] [internal citations omitted]). Accordingly, that branch of defendants' motion is denied.
Retaliation
The branch of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's retaliation claims under NYSHRL
and NYCHRL is also denied. To state a claim for retaliation, plaintiff must allege that: (1) [he]
engaged in a protected activity; (2) the employer was aware of the activity; (3) the employer acted
in a manner reasonably likely to deter plaintiff from engaging in protected activity; and ( 4) a causal
connection existed between the protected activity and the alleged retaliatory action (See e.g.,
Fletcher v Dakota, Inc.,
Plaintiff alleges that he engaged in a protected activity when he contacted Wunderkind's
Human Resources department to discuss the process of filing a discrimination complaint (See
Madrigal v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 191 AD3d 407 [1st Dept 2021] ["Plaintiff engaged in protected
WUNDERKIND CORPORATION D/B/A WUNDERKIND
activity by repeatedly complaining to her employer that supervisors were discriminating against
her"]; see also Krebaum v Capital One, N.A.,
To the extent defendant argues that the complaint's allegation that "Plaintiff contacted HR
the same day, enquiring about filing a complaint regarding the discrimination he was experiencing,
and booked a call to discuss the matter further the next day, May 2, 2023" cannot be read as at
least implying that plaintiff informed HR that the complaint he intended to file was about
discriminatory conduct, the Court disagrees (Cf. Fruchtman v City of New York,
In light of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint is granted; and it is further ORDERED that proposed Second Amended Complaint in the form submitted with plaintiffs motion (NYSCEF Doc. No. 27) is deemed filed and served; and it is further
ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss is denied; and it is further ORDERED that, within twenty days from the date of this decision and order, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry on defendant as well as upon the Clerk of the Court (80 Centre St., Room 308) and the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office (60 Centre St., Room 119); and it is further
ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Motion No. 001 Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases ( accessible at the "E Filing" page on this court's website at the address www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh); and it is further
ORDERED that the parties are to appear for a preliminary conference in Part 4 (80 Centre Street, room 308) on November 1, 2024 at 10:00 am.
This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. 9/26/2024
DATE CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 0 DENIED CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ~ □ OTHER GRANTED GRANTED IN PART APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER □ REFERENCE
INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT
Notes
[1] In light of the amendment to Executive Law §300 mandating that the NYSHRL be interpreted in, effectively, the
same manner as the NYCHRL (See Syeed v Bloomberg L.P., 41 NY3d 446,451 [2024]), NYSHRL claims asserted
after this amendment are properly assessed using the liberal approach employed under the NYCHRL (See u.,_, Hunold
v City of New York,