Summary
holding that an at-will employee cannot establish reasonable reliance, a necessary element for a claim of promissory estoppel
Summary of this case from Blodgett v. Siemens Indus., Inc.Opinion
2003-00803.
Decided March 29, 2004.
In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated December 18, 2002, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Robert B. Pollack, P.C. (Andrew J. Schatkin of counsel), for appellant.
Putney, Twombly, Hall Hirson, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Mary Ellen Donnelly and Alexander Tchernovitz of counsel), for respondents.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the defendants offered her at-will employment. New York continues to adhere to the traditional common-law rule that absent an agreement establishing a fixed duration, an employment relationship is presumed to be a hiring at will, terminable at any time by either party ( see Horn v. New York Times, 100 N.Y.2d 85, 90-91; Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, 69 N.Y.2d 329, 333). Here, it is undisputed that the defendants offered the plaintiff the position of Director of Social Work at a skilled nursing facility which was still under construction. The plaintiff did not allege that the parties entered into an agreement which required the defendants to employ her for a definite and specified term, or which otherwise limited the defendants' right to change the terms of their employment offer by deferring her proposed starting date. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff was merely a prospective employee at will.
Furthermore, since the plaintiff was offered only at-will employment, she cannot establish reasonable reliance, a necessary element to recover damages on theories of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel ( see Arias v. Women in Need, 274 A.D.2d 353; Tannehill v. Paul Stuart, Inc., 226 A.D.2d 117; Clark v. Helmsley Windsor Hotel, 214 A.D.2d 365; Mayer v. Publishers Clearing House, 205 A.D.2d 506; Bower v. Atlis Sys., 182 A.D.2d 951; cf. Navaretta v. Group Health, 191 A.D.2d 953; Stewart v. Jackson Nash, 976 F.2d 86).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., FLORIO, KRAUSMAN and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.