Rajagopalan v. Mount Sinai Medical Center

2 A.D.3d 232, 769 N.Y.S.2d 524, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13187
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 11, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 232 (Rajagopalan v. Mount Sinai Medical Center) 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
Rajagopalan v. Mount Sinai Medical Center, 2 A.D.3d 232, 769 N.Y.S.2d 524, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered September 20, 2002, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The letter agreement under which plaintiff was appointed to a five-year term as associate professor is unambiguous, and its interpretation likewise presents a question of law for the court, to be made without resort to extrinsic evidence (West, Weir & Bartel v Carter Paint Co., 25 NY2d 535, 540 [1969]). Upon expiration of the specified period of employment, plaintiff “failed to demonstrate a limitation by express agreement on his employer’s unfettered right to terminate at will” (Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 NY2d 329, 336 [1987]).

To incorporate the terms of an employee handbook into a contract of employment, the employee must demonstrate reliance upon its terms and resulting detriment (cf. Weiner v Mc-Graw-Hill, Inc., 57 NY2d 458, 465-466 [1982]). Plaintiff has established neither. His references to the faculty handbook include no mention of any express restriction on the right of termination (see Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 305 [1983]). To the contrary, the handbook specifically provides that the departmental chair “may recommend reappointment for an additional five year term ... or not reappoint the individual to the faculty of Mount Sinai School of Medicine.”

Plaintiff received the full benefit of the promised employment for the stated five-year period, and has identified no breach of contract by defendants. We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Williams and Lerner, JJ.

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

Related

Morpheus Capital Advisors LLC v. UBS AG
105 A.D.3d 145 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Melber v. New York State Education Department
71 A.D.3d 1216 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Miller v. Huntington Hospital
15 A.D.3d 548 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 A.D.3d 232, 769 N.Y.S.2d 524, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rajagopalan-v-mount-sinai-medical-center-nyappdiv-2003.