Battaglia v. Sisters of Charity Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Battaglia v. Sisters of Charity Hospital

124 A.D.2d 987, 508 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62304

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 987 (Battaglia v. Sisters of Charity Hospital) 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

Battaglia v. Sisters of Charity Hospital, 124 A.D.2d 987, 508 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Special Term erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s first cause of action. The personnel manual in this case cannot be interpreted to limit defendant’s power to terminate an at-will employee in light of the language of the manual that it is not a contract, that it may be modified, amended or supplemented, and that the hospital retains the right to make all necessary management decisions for the delivery of patient care services and the selection, direction, compensation and retention of employees (see, Collins v Hoselton Datsun, 120 AD2d 952; cf. Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 NY2d 458; Tiranno v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 99 AD2d 675). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Broughton, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Special Term erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s first cause of action. The personnel manual in this case cannot be interpreted to limit defendant’s power to terminate an at-will employee in light of the language of the manual that it is not a contract, that it may be modified, amended or supplemented, and that the hospital retains the right to make all necessary management decisions for the delivery of patient care services and the selection, direction, compensation and retention of employees (see, Collins v Hoselton Datsun, 120 AD2d 952; cf. Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 NY2d 458; Tiranno v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 99 AD2d 675). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Broughton, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 987, 508 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/battaglia-v-sisters-of-charity-hospital-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack