Opinion
June 26, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff, who was an employee at will, could be terminated by the defendant employer for any error or for no reason at any time (see, Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, 69 N.Y.2d 329, 333). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendant's right of discharge was not expressly limited by the company's employee manual (see, Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, supra; Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458; Norvinger v. Eden Park Health Servs., 167 A.D.2d 590, 591). There being no issue of fact, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was properly granted. The plaintiff's remaining contentions relevant to the summary judgment motion are without merit.
The plaintiff's cross motion to amend her complaint was properly denied although the court's reason therefor was erroneous. An at-will employee is not barred from bringing a claim based on the statutorily impermissible practices of the employer such as discrimination based on marital status, disability, or national origin as alleged by the plaintiff (see, Executive Law § 296 [a]; Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v. County of Onondaga Sheriff's Dept., 71 N.Y.2d 623, 630). However, the allegations in the plaintiff's proposed amended complaint are devoid of merit ( see, Brown v. Samalin Bock, 155 A.D.2d 407; Safarowic v. Dinozzi Bldg. Corp., 206 A.D.2d 356). O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.