Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Mary Ann MUHITCH, Appellant-Respondent, v. ST. GREGORY THE GREAT ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND SCHOOL, Respondent-Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
Supreme Court properly granted that part of defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) seeking dismissal of the first cause of action, which alleged breach of an employment contract. The contract, dated June 16, 1994, provided that defendant would employ plaintiff as an elementary school teacher until the last day of school in June 1995. Plaintiff completed that school year but was not offered a contract for the following year. Because the contract did not provide for renewal of plaintiff's employment, the complaint fails to state a cause of action for breach of contract (see generally, Fritzsch v. County of Chenango, 198 A.D.2d 650, 603 N.Y.S.2d 613). The “good cause” provision of the contract referred to by plaintiff would apply only if she had been terminated during the 1994-95 school year.
The court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's request to amend the complaint to allege breach of implied contract. Where, as here, “an express contract exists between the parties concerning the same subject matter, there may be no recovery upon a theory of implied contract” (Nixon Gear & Mach. v. Nixon Gear, 86 A.D.2d 746, 447 N.Y.S.2d 779).
We reject the contention of defendant on its cross appeal that the court should also have dismissed the second cause of action, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 201-d (2). That subdivision prohibits discrimination by “any employer” on any of several grounds. Subparagraph (d) covers “an individual's membership in a union or any exercise of rights granted under Title 29, USCA, Chapter 7 [National Labor Relations Act] or under article fourteen of the civil service law [Taylor Law] [emphasis added].” Contrary to defendant's contention, the use of the conjunction “or” in Labor Law § 201-d (2)(d) indicates that the protection of the statute extends to members of any union and is not limited to members of unions subject to the National Labor Relations Act or the Taylor Law.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 30, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)