Ortiz v. Soukkary

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortiz v. Soukkary

253 A.D.2d 596, 677 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9238

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 3, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 596 (Ortiz v. Soukkary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ortiz v. Soukkary, 253 A.D.2d 596, 677 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered on or about December 12, 1997, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee dated May 13, 1997, finding that defendant Dr. Solima Soukkary did not have a genuine, sincerely held religious belief that would prohibit her from submitting to a videotaped deposition, and granted defendant Soukkarys cross-motion to reject the report and for a protective order denying plaintiffs’ right to conduct a videotaped deposition, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, the cross motion denied, and the motion to confirm the report granted.

Since there is no basis in the record to exempt defendant Soukkary from submitting to a videotaped deposition in accordance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 202.15 or to reject the findings and recommendations of the Special Referee, which are amply supported by the evidence, the court erred in disaffirming the report. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered on or about December 12, 1997, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee dated May 13, 1997, finding that defendant Dr. Solima Soukkary did not have a genuine, sincerely held religious belief that would prohibit her from submitting to a videotaped deposition, and granted defendant Soukkarys cross-motion to reject the report and for a protective order denying plaintiffs’ right to conduct a videotaped deposition, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, the cross motion denied, and the motion to confirm the report granted.

Since there is no basis in the record to exempt defendant Soukkary from submitting to a videotaped deposition in accordance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 202.15 or to reject the findings and recommendations of the Special Referee, which are amply supported by the evidence, the court erred in disaffirming the report. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 596, 677 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-soukkary-nyappdiv-1998.