(Download) "Lawrence Gould v. Community Health Plan Suffolk" by Supreme Court of New York # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Lawrence Gould v. Community Health Plan Suffolk
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 09, 1984
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 68 KB
Description
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated July 1, 1982, which, inter alia, granted those branches of plaintiffs motion which sought to amend his complaint by adding Maureen Martus as an additional party defendant, and by asserting two additional causes of action, and denied defendants cross motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with costs, plaintiffs motion denied, and that branch of defendants cross motion which sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted. Plaintiff began his employment with defendant Community Health Plan of Suffolk (CHPS) in a part-time capacity on October 1, 1978. On July 1, 1979, he became a full-time CHPS employee. By letter dated June 26, 1980, the CHPS director, defendant Martin Posner, notified plaintiff that his employment was to be terminated as of July 11, 1980. Following a meeting of the grievance committee at which plaintiff, Posner, and others appeared, the personnel committee of the board of directors reinstated plaintiff in a part-time, probationary capacity, effective as of July 21, 1980. In the interim, plaintiff commenced this action in which four causes of action were set forth. The first cause of action alleged breach of contract and wrongful termination, the second, fraud and misrepresentation, the third, prima facie tort, and the fourth, violation of his civil and constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. While this action was pending, plaintiff was discharged from employment with CHPS on December 19, 1980. Thereafter, plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to add a fifth cause of action alleging that the termination of his employment and a subsequent denial of a hearing before the grievance committee were illegal, and a sixth cause of action alleging a conspiracy between defendants Posner and Martus with respect to his dismissal. It is undisputed that plaintiffs employment was pursuant to an oral agreement and was without a specific termination date. Consequently, his employment was, prima facie, a hiring at will, and his dismissal would not give rise to a cause of action for breach of contract (see Martin v New York Life Ins. Co., 148 NY 117, 121; Parker v Borock, 5 N.Y.2d 156, 159). Plaintiff has attempted to raise triable issues of fact with respect to whether the CHPS personnel policies and benefits gave rise to an implied contract of employment which limited CHPS right of termination (see, generally, Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458; Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293; Parker v Borock, supra). Plaintiffs vague allegations about the nature of the optometry practice he surrendered in exchange for the position he accepted with CHPS, and his further allegations about being advised he could have the job as long as he wanted it, and that he would [99 A.D.2d 479 Page 480]