Stanton v. Highland Hospital of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stanton v. Highland Hospital of Rochester

197 A.D.2d 854, 602 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9221

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 197 A.D.2d 854 (Stanton v. Highland Hospital of Rochester) 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

Stanton v. Highland Hospital of Rochester, 197 A.D.2d 854, 602 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant proffered evidentiary proof establishing that plaintiff’s employment was at will and that there was no express agreement that limited defendant’s right to terminate plaintiff’s employment (see, Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 NY2d 329; Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293; Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 NY2d 458; Backus [855]*855v Planned Parenthood, 161 AD2d 1116; Valvo v Chautauqua Area Girl Scout Council, 159 AD2d 1021; Collins v Hoselton Datsun, 120 AD2d 952). Plaintiffs reliance on the Employee Handbook and the Policy Manual is misplaced because neither document limits or restricts defendant’s right to discharge plaintiff at will (cf., Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., supra). Indeed, the Employee Handbook contains an explicit disclaimer (see, Battaglia v Sisters of Charity Hosp., 124 AD2d 987).

Finally, we conclude that Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiffs cause of action alleging breach of an implied covenant of good faith (see, Sabetay v Sterling Drug, supra, at 335-336; Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., supra, at 304-305). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wisner, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Davis, 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 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant proffered evidentiary proof establishing that plaintiff’s employment was at will and that there was no express agreement that limited defendant’s right to terminate plaintiff’s employment (see, Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 NY2d 329; Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293; Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 NY2d 458; Backus [855]*855v Planned Parenthood, 161 AD2d 1116; Valvo v Chautauqua Area Girl Scout Council, 159 AD2d 1021; Collins v Hoselton Datsun, 120 AD2d 952). Plaintiffs reliance on the Employee Handbook and the Policy Manual is misplaced because neither document limits or restricts defendant’s right to discharge plaintiff at will (cf., Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., supra). Indeed, the Employee Handbook contains an explicit disclaimer (see, Battaglia v Sisters of Charity Hosp., 124 AD2d 987).

Finally, we conclude that Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiffs cause of action alleging breach of an implied covenant of good faith (see, Sabetay v Sterling Drug, supra, at 335-336; Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., supra, at 304-305). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wisner, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 854, 602 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanton-v-highland-hospital-of-rochester-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack