Opinion
July 3, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.).
It is well settled that New York does not recognize a cause of action for breach of an at-will employment contract, absent an express agreement limiting the employer's otherwise unfettered right to terminate the employment. (Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, 69 N.Y.2d 329, 333; Murphy v. American Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 300; Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458, 465.)
Here, contrary to defendants' assertions, the IAS court did not err in determining that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a contractual limitation on defendants' right to terminate his at-will employment based upon policy numbers 113 and 113.3 of the Columbia Personnel Policy Manual, which provided that "officers of administration" would not be terminated except for "cause", as well as policy guidelines for termination of employment. Moreover, any conflict between these provisions and the disclaimer in the introduction cannot be resolved as a matter of law.
Similarly, the IAS court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing that portion of the complaint setting forth a tort cause of action for wrongful termination of employment since New York does not recognize a cause of action in tort for abusive or wrongful discharge. (D'Avino v Trachtenburg, 149 A.D.2d 401, 403.)
The IAS court did not abuse its discretion nor were the defendants prejudiced by the amendment of the complaint to add facts in support of plaintiff's claim for breach of an employment contract. (Fahey v. County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934; D'Onofrio v St. Joseph's Hosp. Health Center, 101 A.D.2d 686.)
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Smith, JJ.