Hynard v Wile Assoc., Ltd.

[*1] Hynard v Wile Assoc., Ltd. 2005 NYSlipOp 51305(U) Decided on April 13, 2005 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 13, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS -x PRESENT : RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and COVELLO, JJ.
2003-569 W C -x

Paul O. Hynard, Appellant, 4/13/05

against

Wile Associates, Ltd., Respondent. -x

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (R. Cerrato, J.), entered on April 4, 2003, following a non-jury trial, in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

In this action for breach of an alleged contract of employment, the court below properly found that the terms of the purported agreement were too vague to constitute an employment contract for a definite term. New York law presumes that employment for an indefinite or unspecified term is at will and may be freely terminated by either party at any time without cause or notice (see Horn v New York Times, 100 NY2d 85, 90-91 [2003]; Poplawski v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 543 [1999]). Key to whether this presumption of at-will employment applies to a given matter is the question of definiteness of the term of employment, the issue at the heart of the dispute in the present case (see Rooney v Tyson, 91 NY2d 685, 689-690 [1998]). Here, the alleged written contract of employment is silent as to any term of employment, and although plaintiff alleges an oral agreement of a year's term, defendant denies that any fixed term of employment was promised. Even if plaintiff's testimony were to be accepted, it does not establish whether a single year's term was intended, or whether the term was "yearly" or "by the year," which would give rise to an indefinite term (id. at 691, citing Martin v New York Life Ins. Co., 148 NY 117 [1895]). Under the circumstances [*2]presented, the court below properly held that plaintiff had failed to establish an agreement to a definite term of employment, and thus the existence of an exception to the employment at will doctrine (cf. Rooney, 91 NY2d at 693 [parties agreed that terms of oral employment agreement extended for period of professional boxing career; court found this to be a definite, determinable period]).
Decision Date: April 13, 2005