DeSimone v. Supertek, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeSimone v. Supertek, Inc.

308 A.D.2d 501, 764 N.Y.S.2d 846

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 501 (DeSimone v. Supertek, Inc.) 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

DeSimone v. Supertek, Inc., 308 A.D.2d 501, 764 N.Y.S.2d 846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated August 12, 2002, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary [502]*502judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging breach of contract.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that absent an agreement establishing a fixed duration, an employment relationship is presumed to be a hiring at will, terminable at any time by either party, for any reason or even for no reason (see Lobosco v New York Tel. Co. / NYNEX, 96 NY2d 312, 316; [2001] Matter of De Petris v Union Settlement Assn., 86 NY2d 406, 410 [1995]; Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 NY2d 329, 333 [1987]; Riccardi v Cunningham, 291 AD2d 547, 548 [2002]). The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that there was no agreement establishing a fixed duration to the plaintiffs’ employment. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging breach of contract.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated August 12, 2002, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary [502]*502judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging breach of contract.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that absent an agreement establishing a fixed duration, an employment relationship is presumed to be a hiring at will, terminable at any time by either party, for any reason or even for no reason (see Lobosco v New York Tel. Co. / NYNEX, 96 NY2d 312, 316; [2001] Matter of De Petris v Union Settlement Assn., 86 NY2d 406, 410 [1995]; Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 NY2d 329, 333 [1987]; Riccardi v Cunningham, 291 AD2d 547, 548 [2002]). The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that there was no agreement establishing a fixed duration to the plaintiffs’ employment. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging breach of contract.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 501, 764 N.Y.S.2d 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/desimone-v-supertek-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack