A suit filed by personal injury firm Ginarte Gallardo Gonzalez & Winograd against competitor William Schwitzer for allegedly paying "runners" to stake out a doctor's office and bribe clients into switching firms was allowed to partially proceed to discovery.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice James D'Auguste, ruling on a motion to dismiss, said Monday that the Ginarte firm's claims for tortious interference, defamation and civil conspiracy can advance against the Schwitzer firm and its co-defendants. However, other claims—for attorney deceit, unfair competition and racketeering, among other things—were cut from the case, as was the Schwitzer firm's counterclaim for defamation.

Ginarte, represented by Clifford Robert of Robert & Robert, accuses Schwitzer and its attorneys of working with Rene Garcia, a solo practitioner with whom it shares office space, and two "runners" named Mignolia Pena and Janilda Gomez. Ginarte claims the defendants offered injury victims $2,000 or $3,000 if they would dump Ginarte and hire Schwitzer. It supported its case with an affidavit from one of its paralegals, who went undercover as a supposed injury victim and said he was escorted to the Schwitzer firm's office by the runners for a consultation.

The Schwitzer defendants, represented by Randy Mastro of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, have staunchly denied any wrongdoing. The firm has said any clients who switched were firmly within their rights to do business with a lawyer of their choosing, and it denied conspiring with runners to get cases.

In his order Monday, d'Auguste said some of the alleged wrongdoing wasn't actionable under law. For example, he said, New York Judiciary Law Section 487, which bars attorney deceit, only covers parties to judicial proceedings, not the extrajudicial contest for clients described by the Ginarte firm. The judge also cut allegations of defamation that were too vague from the suit.

The judge also cut a claim that accused Schwitzer and its codefendants of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. If it or the Section 487 claim had cleared the dismissal stage, triple damages would have been on the table, but d'Auguste said the allegations of criminal acts in support of the RICO claim were too thin.

But the judge repeatedly cited an affidavit of Juan Flores Hernandez, the Ginarte paralegal who pretended to be an injury victim, in his reasoning. In particular, the judge cited Hernandez's description of how he was taken to the Schwitzer firm's offices, and the transcripts of phone calls he had with the "runners."

"Here, the submissions suggest that the Schwitzer defendants improperly used case runners to solicit plaintiff's clients by offering them cash, transportation and loan forgiveness to induce plaintiff's clients to change firms," the judge wrote. "Although [the runners] deny any association with the Schwitzer firm, Hernandez's affidavit indicates otherwise."

The decision came after oral arguments were held in October. In an exchange of letters, the parties indicated that d'Auguste had asked them to consider settlement before he issued a ruling, but the Ginarte firm said a settlement wasn't in the cards.

Both sides found something to like about Monday's ruling. Robert said Joseph Ginarte, a name partner at Ginarte Gallardo, was "very pleased" with the decision.

"The defendant's predictable motions to dismiss did little more than temporarily delay justice for Mr. Ginarte," Robert said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Mastro wrote in an email, "We're gratified that the court has now dismissed most of the Ginarte firm's case, but none of its claims should have survived dismissal." He added: "This baseless litigation is nothing more than a rival's attempt to smear the Schwitzer firm and sully its reputation as one of the premier personal injury law firms in this state. And it will ultimately be dismissed in its entirety."

Neither side would comment about the prospect of mounting an appeal.