Struwe v. R.E. Chapin Manufacturing Works, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Struwe v. R.E. Chapin Manufacturing Works, Inc.

161 A.D.2d 1179, 555 N.Y.S.2d 970, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9193

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

DecidedMay 11, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 161 A.D.2d 1179 (Struwe v. R.E. Chapin Manufacturing Works, Inc.) 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

Struwe v. R.E. Chapin Manufacturing Works, Inc., 161 A.D.2d 1179, 555 N.Y.S.2d 970, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff was given an oral offer of employment, completed no employment application, and neither was offered nor asked for a written contract of [1180]*1180employment. This offer of employment for an unspecified period of time constitutes a hiring at will (see, Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 300; Arentz v Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., 249 NY 439, 443-444; Kotick v Desai, 123 AD2d 744; Gould v Community Health Plan, 99 AD2d 479). Plaintiff’s alleged reliance upon verbal assurances by defendant’s president "that anybody that was doing his job has employment as long as he wants” is insufficient to alter his at-will status (see, Hill v Westchester Aeronautical Corp., 112 AD2d 977, 978). Plaintiff’s reliance upon the job security provisions of the union collective bargaining agreement is misplaced. The agreement does not apply to plaintiff because, as a management employee, he is specifically excluded from its coverage (see, Lagenor v Weed, 127 AD2d 970). Because plaintiff is not a beneficiary of the agreement, he cannot seek protection under its terms (see, O’Connor v Eastman Kodak Co., 65 NY2d 724, 725). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Den-man, J. P., Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff was given an oral offer of employment, completed no employment application, and neither was offered nor asked for a written contract of [1180]*1180employment. This offer of employment for an unspecified period of time constitutes a hiring at will (see, Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 300; Arentz v Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., 249 NY 439, 443-444; Kotick v Desai, 123 AD2d 744; Gould v Community Health Plan, 99 AD2d 479). Plaintiff’s alleged reliance upon verbal assurances by defendant’s president "that anybody that was doing his job has employment as long as he wants” is insufficient to alter his at-will status (see, Hill v Westchester Aeronautical Corp., 112 AD2d 977, 978). Plaintiff’s reliance upon the job security provisions of the union collective bargaining agreement is misplaced. The agreement does not apply to plaintiff because, as a management employee, he is specifically excluded from its coverage (see, Lagenor v Weed, 127 AD2d 970). Because plaintiff is not a beneficiary of the agreement, he cannot seek protection under its terms (see, O’Connor v Eastman Kodak Co., 65 NY2d 724, 725). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Den-man, J. P., Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 1179, 555 N.Y.S.2d 970, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/struwe-v-re-chapin-manufacturing-works-inc-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack