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.
Martha BARTENBACH, Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NASSAU LIBRARY SYSTEM, et al., Respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an employment contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated November 29, 1995, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Absent an agreement establishing employment for a fixed duration, an employment relationship is presumed to be a hiring at will, terminable at any time by either party (see, Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, 69 N.Y.2d 329, 333, 514 N.Y.S.2d 209, 506 N.E.2d 919; Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458, 457 N.Y.S.2d 193, 443 N.E.2d 441). Here, the plaintiff failed to allege anything more than an employment at will. There was no evidence in the record of a written contract of employment. Moreover, the “Personnel Policy and Procedure Manual”, upon which she claims to have relied, enumerated several reasons for dismissal including unfitness, incompetence, and mental and physical disability. It did not, however, limit the defendants' right to discharge an employee at will to just and sufficient cause only (see, Baker v. Citibank, 178 A.D.2d 627, 577 N.Y.S.2d 875; see also, Scheiber v. St. John's Univ., 195 A.D.2d 544, 600 N.Y.S.2d 734; Wexler v. Newsweek, Inc., 109 A.D.2d 714, 487 N.Y.S.2d 330). Thus, the plaintiff's employment could have been terminated at will and accordingly her complaint sounding in breach of contract and detrimental reliance was properly dismissed.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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 12, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)