Opinion
June 12, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiff's seventh cause of action sounding in wrongful discharge (see, Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 N.Y.2d 329, 334-336; Murphy v. American Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 297-298; Monsanto v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 141 A.D.2d 514, 515). The dismissal of the remaining causes of action sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress was also proper, since the plaintiffs failed to allege conduct remotely approaching the standard of behavior necessary to establish such a cause of action (see, Fischer v. Maloney, 43 N.Y.2d 553, 557; Burlew v. American Mut. Ins. Co., 63 N.Y.2d 412, 415, 417). The remaining causes of action were clearly designed to circumvent the unavailability of any remedy based upon wrongful discharge (see, Murphy v. American Home Prods. Corp., supra). No cause of action to recover damages for prima facie tort was asserted in the complaint, which failed to allege the defendants' conduct was wholly unjustified or done with malevolence. In any event, we reject the plaintiff's attempt to raise this cause of action for the first time on appeal and create a "catch-all" alternative for those other causes of action which were clearly insufficient as a matter of law (see, Freihofer v. Hearst Corp., 65 N.Y.2d 135, 142-143; Curiano v. Suozzi, 63 N.Y.2d 113, 117-118; Burns Jackson Miller Summit Spitzer v. Lindner, 59 N.Y.2d 314, 332-333; James v. Board of Educ., 37 N.Y.2d 891, 893-894). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Rubin and Balletta, JJ., concur.