Panek v. Toomey Residential & Community Service Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Panek v. Toomey Residential & Community Service Corp.

262 A.D.2d 1054, 692 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7297

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

DecidedJune 18, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 1054 (Panek v. Toomey Residential & Community Service 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

Panek v. Toomey Residential & Community Service Corp., 262 A.D.2d 1054, 692 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7297 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the employee personnel manual does not limit or restrict defendant’s right to terminate plaintiff’s at-will employment (see, Matter of De Petris v Union Settlement Assn., 86 NY2d 406, 410; Moore v Anheuser-Busch, 221 AD2d 913; Stanton v Highland Hosp., 197 AD2d 854), nor was such right affected by plaintiff’s execution of the employee warning notice, which provided that plaintiff could be terminated if her conduct persisted (cf., McDowell v Dart, 201 AD2d 895). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Nicholson, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pine, J. P., Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, 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 to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the employee personnel manual does not limit or restrict defendant’s right to terminate plaintiff’s at-will employment (see, Matter of De Petris v Union Settlement Assn., 86 NY2d 406, 410; Moore v Anheuser-Busch, 221 AD2d 913; Stanton v Highland Hosp., 197 AD2d 854), nor was such right affected by plaintiff’s execution of the employee warning notice, which provided that plaintiff could be terminated if her conduct persisted (cf., McDowell v Dart, 201 AD2d 895). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Nicholson, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pine, J. P., Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 1054, 692 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panek-v-toomey-residential-community-service-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack