Miller v. Richman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Green, J.
Plaintiff cannot circumvent the employment-at-will rule by asserting causes of action for defamation, injurious falsehood and tortious interference with her employment (see, Ingle v Glamore Motor Sales, 73 NY2d 183; Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293). Therefore, defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]) should have been granted.
In considering the motion addressed to the sufficiency of the complaint, we accept plaintiff’s allegations as true (see, Prudential-Bache Sec. v Citibank, 73…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Murphy v. American Home Products Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Guard-Life Corp. v. S. Parker Hardware Manufacturing Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Ingle v. Glamore Motor Sales, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Silsdorf v. LevineNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Citibank, N. A.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Samuel Albert v. Salmen Loksen, Brooklyn Hospital and Karen BuonoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- Murphy v. Cadillac Rubber & Plastics, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 1996
- Ott v. Automatic Connector, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Cohen v. DavisDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- Curry v. RomanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.