McPherson v. U.S. Clearing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McPherson v. U.S. Clearing Corp.

214 A.D.2d 340, 625 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3695

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

DecidedApril 6, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 340 (McPherson v. U.S. Clearing Corp.) 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

McPherson v. U.S. Clearing Corp., 214 A.D.2d 340, 625 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, [341]*341New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered June 22, 1994, which, in an action for breach of an employment contract, granted defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff employee’s complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The language in the personnel manual relied on by plaintiff can be construed as a promise to terminate solely for cause only through a reading that relies heavily on inference. The limitation urged by plaintiff on an employer’s otherwise unfettered right to terminate an employee at will must be express (see, Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 NY2d 458; see also, Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 NY2d 329). Indeed, as the IAS Court pointed out, the manual was express in describing the employment as at will and in stating that it was not a contract or guarantee of employment. We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, [341]*341New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered June 22, 1994, which, in an action for breach of an employment contract, granted defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff employee’s complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The language in the personnel manual relied on by plaintiff can be construed as a promise to terminate solely for cause only through a reading that relies heavily on inference. The limitation urged by plaintiff on an employer’s otherwise unfettered right to terminate an employee at will must be express (see, Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 NY2d 458; see also, Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 NY2d 329). Indeed, as the IAS Court pointed out, the manual was express in describing the employment as at will and in stating that it was not a contract or guarantee of employment. We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 340, 625 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcpherson-v-us-clearing-corp-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack