Longariello v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Longariello v. City of Yonkers

203 A.D.2d 335, 612 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3716

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

DecidedApril 11, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 335 (Longariello v. City of Yonkers) 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

Longariello v. City of Yonkers, 203 A.D.2d 335, 612 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful discharge, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered May 28, 1992, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly determined that as a regular [336]*336substitute teacher, the plaintiff had no contractual or legal rights to employment with the defendant and that he failed to state a cause of action for abusive or wrongful discharge (see, Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 NY2d 329; O’Connor v Eastman Kodak Co., 65 NY2d 724; Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 297-301; see also, Labor Law § 740; Givens, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 30, Labor Law § 740, at 545). In addition, we find that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action under any other statute set forth in his complaint or in his amended notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 682 [2], [4]; §§ 683, 684; Matter of Van Heusen v Board of Educ., 26 AD2d 721, 722; Matter of Pinto v Wynstra, 22 AD2d 914; Nassau Ch. v Board of Educ., 63 Misc 2d 49; see also, Labor Law §§ 210, 219, 704). Thus, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Altman, 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 wrongful discharge, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered May 28, 1992, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly determined that as a regular [336]*336substitute teacher, the plaintiff had no contractual or legal rights to employment with the defendant and that he failed to state a cause of action for abusive or wrongful discharge (see, Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 NY2d 329; O’Connor v Eastman Kodak Co., 65 NY2d 724; Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 297-301; see also, Labor Law § 740; Givens, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 30, Labor Law § 740, at 545). In addition, we find that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action under any other statute set forth in his complaint or in his amended notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 682 [2], [4]; §§ 683, 684; Matter of Van Heusen v Board of Educ., 26 AD2d 721, 722; Matter of Pinto v Wynstra, 22 AD2d 914; Nassau Ch. v Board of Educ., 63 Misc 2d 49; see also, Labor Law §§ 210, 219, 704). Thus, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 335, 612 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/longariello-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack