Eustace v. Millard Fillmore Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eustace v. Millard Fillmore Hospital

186 A.D.2d 1048, 590 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11649

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 1048 (Eustace v. Millard Fillmore 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

Eustace v. Millard Fillmore Hospital, 186 A.D.2d 1048, 590 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. As an at-will employee, plaintiff had no cause of action for breach of contract or wrongful discharge (see, Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293; Connor v First Sec. Servs. Corp., 135 AD2d 1131; see also, Pulsafeeder, Inc. v Greene, 185 AD2d 667). Plaintiff also had no cause of action under the Human Rights Law. Plaintiff alleged that she was terminated because she resisted and complained about the homosexual advances of a co-worker (see, Executive Law § 296 [1] [e]). Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the co-worker made two sexually suggestive remarks. The record shows, however, that the first remark was not sexually suggestive and that the second, even if regarded as being sexually suggestive, was not specifically directed at plaintiff. Further, the record is devoid of evidence that the alleged remarks of the co-worker were condoned by defendant or that plaintiff was terminated because she complained about the alleged remarks. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Boehm, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. As an at-will employee, plaintiff had no cause of action for breach of contract or wrongful discharge (see, Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293; Connor v First Sec. Servs. Corp., 135 AD2d 1131; see also, Pulsafeeder, Inc. v Greene, 185 AD2d 667). Plaintiff also had no cause of action under the Human Rights Law. Plaintiff alleged that she was terminated because she resisted and complained about the homosexual advances of a co-worker (see, Executive Law § 296 [1] [e]). Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the co-worker made two sexually suggestive remarks. The record shows, however, that the first remark was not sexually suggestive and that the second, even if regarded as being sexually suggestive, was not specifically directed at plaintiff. Further, the record is devoid of evidence that the alleged remarks of the co-worker were condoned by defendant or that plaintiff was terminated because she complained about the alleged remarks. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Boehm, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 1048, 590 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eustace-v-millard-fillmore-hospital-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack