Opinion
Argued May 6, 1999
June 21, 1999
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful termination of employment and defamation, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered June 4, 1998, which, upon an order of the same court entered May 12, 1998, converting the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint into one for summary judgment and granting that motion, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.
Fein Jakab, New York, N.Y. (Irving W. Fein and Max Cohen of counsel), for appellant.
Callan, Regenstreich, Koster Brady, New York, N.Y. (Walter P. Burrell and Vincent Nagler of counsel), for respondents Metropolitan Property Casualty Insurance Company, Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company, Metropolitan General Insurance Company, and First General Insurance Company.
Proskauer Rose, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Allen I. Fagin and Joseph C. O'Keefe of counsel), for respondent Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
SONDRA MILLER, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that he was an "at-will" employee. Absent an agreement establishing a fixed duration, an employment relationship is presumed to be a hiring at will, terminable at any time for any reason or no reason by either party ( see, Rooney v. Tyson, 91 N.Y.2d 685, 689; Matter of De Petris v. Union Settlement Assn., 86 N.Y.2d 406, 410). Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot maintain causes of action to recover damages for breach of an employment agreement and wrongful termination.
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the cause of action sounding in defamation. The complaint failed to comply with the special pleading requirement that the particular defamatory words be set forth therein, thereby mandating dismissal ( see, CPLR 3016[a]; Monsanto v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 141 A.D.2d 514). In any event, the statements that the plaintiff alleges were defamatory were contained in documents created by the defendants and forwarded by them to the Insurance Department of the State of New York, and were protected by absolute privilege ( see, Julien J. Studley, Inc. v. Lefrak, 50 A.D.2d 162, 164, affd 41 N.Y.2d 881; see also, Insurance Law § 2112[d]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.