Moore v. Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated

221 A.D.2d 913, 635 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13393
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ first through sixth, ninth, and eleventh causes of action. The court erred, however, in failing to dismiss plaintiffs’ seventh, eighth and tenth causes of action alleging breach of a contract of employment and seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiff Richard A. Moore was an at-will employee whose employment could be terminated for any reason (see, Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 NY2d 329, 333; Rock v Sear-Brown Assocs., 136 AD2d 894, 895). Defendant’s personnel manual does not contain an express provision limiting defendant’s right to terminate at-will employees (cf, Weiner v McGrawHill, Inc., 57 NY2d 458, 465-466). Plaintiffs’ tenth cause of action seeking punitive damages must be dismissed as no causes of action remain upon which compensatory damages may be awarded (see, Bishop v Bostick, 141 AD2d 487, 489). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Nicholson, J.—Dismiss Causes of Action.) Present—Denman, P. J., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Moore v. Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated, 221 A.D.2d 913, 635 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

221 A.D.2d 913 (Moore v. Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Panek v. Toomey Residential & Community Service Corp.
262 A.D.2d 1054 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)