Pervez v. Beth Israel Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pervez v. Beth Israel Medical Center

11 A.D.3d 306, 782 N.Y.S.2d 714, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11954

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 306 (Pervez v. Beth Israel Medical Center) 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

Pervez v. Beth Israel Medical Center, 11 A.D.3d 306, 782 N.Y.S.2d 714, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11954 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[307]*307Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered June 25, 2003, which, in an action for breach of a severance agreement providing for disability payments upon certain conditions, denied defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to answer deposition questions concerning “professional services” that he admittedly rendered from 2001 to the present, or, in the alternative, to preclude plaintiff from presenting evidence of his alleged disability from 2001 to the present, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Documents submitted in camera establish that the so-called “professional services” in question were rendered in connection with litigation that is presently the subject of a confidentiality order, do not constitute “employment” within the meaning of the parties’ severance agreement, and are not otherwise material and necessary to this action. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[307]*307Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered June 25, 2003, which, in an action for breach of a severance agreement providing for disability payments upon certain conditions, denied defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to answer deposition questions concerning “professional services” that he admittedly rendered from 2001 to the present, or, in the alternative, to preclude plaintiff from presenting evidence of his alleged disability from 2001 to the present, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Documents submitted in camera establish that the so-called “professional services” in question were rendered in connection with litigation that is presently the subject of a confidentiality order, do not constitute “employment” within the meaning of the parties’ severance agreement, and are not otherwise material and necessary to this action. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 306, 782 N.Y.S.2d 714, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pervez-v-beth-israel-medical-center-nyappdiv-2004.