From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Connor v. Eastman Kodak Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 19, 1985
108 A.D.2d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

February 19, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mirabile, J.).


Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the aforenoted branch of defendant's motion granted, and complaint dismissed in its entirety.

While it is true that under certain circumstances an action for breach of an employment contract can be maintained where the employment is not for a fixed term ( see, Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458), plaintiff's vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient to withstand defendant's motion for summary judgment. We note that in contrast to Weiner, there is no reference in this case to any handbook or brochure provision which declares that dismissal would occur for "`just and sufficient cause only, and only after all practical steps toward rehabilitation or salvage of the employee have been taken and failed'" ( Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., supra, p 460). Rather, plaintiff mistakenly relies on general policy statements and supervisory guidelines ( Citera v Chemical Bank, 105 A.D.2d 636; Patrowich v Chemical Bank, 98 A.D.2d 318, appeal dismissed as against defendant Chemical Bank 62 N.Y.2d 801, dismissal of complaint as to defendant Corney affd 63 N.Y.2d 541).

Moreover, plaintiff's employment application neither contained nor alluded to any assurance that he would not be dismissed by defendant without just cause ( cf. Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., supra, p 460).

Plaintiff's vague allegations relating to the security he would receive from defendant's personnel policies and the offers of employment he rejected in reliance on promises of job security are also inadequate for the purpose of withstanding defendant's motion ( see, Gould v Community Health Plan, 99 A.D.2d 479; Patrowich v Chemical Bank, supra, p 323).

Accordingly, that branch of defendant's motion which sought summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action should have been granted ( see also, Utas v Power Auth., 96 A.D.2d 940; O'Donnell v Westchester Community Serv. Council, 96 A.D.2d 885). Titone, J.P., Thompson, O'Connor and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

O'Connor v. Eastman Kodak Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 19, 1985
108 A.D.2d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

O'Connor v. Eastman Kodak Company

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT F. O'CONNOR, Respondent, v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 19, 1985

Citations

108 A.D.2d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Monsanto v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

In view of the fact that the employment agreement provides that it may not be modified absent a written…

Lapidus v. Retarded Children

Thus, in many ways the facts here parallel those in Weiner. Generally speaking, those cases which have…