Toshiba America, Inc. v. Simmons

104 A.D.2d 649, 480 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20066
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 24, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 104 A.D.2d 649 (Toshiba America, Inc. v. Simmons) 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
Toshiba America, Inc. v. Simmons, 104 A.D.2d 649, 480 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20066 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, for money had and received, wherein defendant counterclaimed for damages for wrongful discharge, plaintiff appeals, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the 9th and 10th Judicial Districts, dated February 27, 1984, which affirmed an order of the County Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), dated July 15, 1983, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss the counterclaim.

Orders reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant’s counterclaim granted.

Defendant’s employment, pursuant to an oral agreement, was not for a specific term and was, prima facie, a hiring at will (Gould v Community Health Plan, 99 AD2d 479). Although this, per se, does not rule out a cause of action for wrongful discharge (see Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 NY2d 458; cf. Utas v Power Auth., 96 AD2d 940), defendant’s allegation that at the time of [650]*650hiring he was told by plaintiff’s personnel that plaintiff was “a good employer from the standpoint * * * of job security [and] that if any problems arose, [plaintiff] would endeavor to work them out equitably” is insufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293; Gould v Community Health Plan, supra). We note that the relevant provisions in the employer’s handbook do not exclude termination without cause (cf. Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., supra, p 460). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, O’Connor and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hartman v. R. P. McCoy Apparel, Ltd.
145 A.D.2d 464 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Sivel v. Readers Digest, Inc.
677 F. Supp. 183 (S.D. New York, 1988)
Dalton v. Union Bank of Switzerland
134 A.D.2d 174 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Campbell
512 So. 2d 725 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1987)
Pappas v. Air France
652 F. Supp. 198 (E.D. New York, 1986)
Kotick v. Desai
123 A.D.2d 744 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Lapidus v. New York City Chapter of New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc.
118 A.D.2d 122 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Oakley v. St. Joseph's Hospital
116 A.D.2d 911 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Hill v. Westchester Aeronautical Corp.
112 A.D.2d 977 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Leahy v. Federal Express Corp.
609 F. Supp. 668 (E.D. New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 A.D.2d 649, 480 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toshiba-america-inc-v-simmons-nyappdiv-1984.