TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Murchison v. Community Counseling & Mediation Services, Inc.

Benjamin Murchison v. Community Counseling and Mediation Services, Inc.

Murchison v. Cmty. Counseling & Mediation Servs., Inc., 228 A.D.2d 657 (1996)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 24, 1996
Citations
228 A.D.2d 657646 N.Y.2d 10646 N.Y.S.2d 101996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7434

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

*658 It is well settled 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, Matter of De Petris v Union Settlement Assn., 86 NY2d 406, 410 ; Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 NY2d 329, 333 ). New York recognizes no tort for wrongful discharge, and a discharged employee may recover damages for breach of contract only if the employee can establish that the employer made the employee aware of its express written policy limiting its right of discharge and that the employee detrimentally relied on that policy in accepting the employment (see, Matter of De Petris v Union Settlement Assn., supra; Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 NY2d 458, 465-466 ).

In the instant case, the plaintiff admitted that he was not aware of the provisions of the defendant’s personnel manual at the time he was hired. He also admitted that he and the defendant never discussed the reasons for which he could be discharged. Under these facts, the plaintiff could not establish detrimental reliance and therefore had no cognizable cause of action for breach of contract against the defendant. Accordingly, the court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint.

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1997: 22009: 119972026peak 1997 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Daub v. Future Tech Enterprise, Inc.65 A.D.3d 1004 (2009)
  2. Laduke v. Hepburn Medical Center239 A.D.2d 750 (1997)
  3. Wolde-Meskel v. Vocational Instruction Project Community Services, Inc.950 F. Supp. 101 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 443 N.E.2d 441 (N.Y. 1982) 439
Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 506 N.E.2d 919 (N.Y. 1987) 340
De Petris v. Union Settlement Ass'n, 657 N.E.2d 269 (N.Y. 1995) 67

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list