Opinion
426 CA 17–01610
03-23-2018
Carter HALL, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, Macdo Foods, Inc., McDonald's USA, LLC, Harry Schatmeyer, III, and Darrin Glass, Defendants–Respondents.
GRECO TRAPP, PLLC, BUFFALO (DUANE D. SCHOONMAKER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., FAIRPORT (JESSICA F. PIZZUTELLI OF COUNSEL), FAIRPORT, FOR DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS MCDONALD'S CORPORATION AND MCDONALD'S USA, LLC. LECLAIR RYAN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, ROCHESTER (CHRISTINA L. SHIFTON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS MACDO FOODS, INC., HARRY SCHATMEYER, III AND DARRIN GLASS.
GRECO TRAPP, PLLC, BUFFALO (DUANE D. SCHOONMAKER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., FAIRPORT (JESSICA F. PIZZUTELLI OF COUNSEL), FAIRPORT, FOR DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS MCDONALD'S CORPORATION AND MCDONALD'S USA, LLC.
LECLAIR RYAN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, ROCHESTER (CHRISTINA L. SHIFTON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS MACDO FOODS, INC., HARRY SCHATMEYER, III AND DARRIN GLASS.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages based on his allegedly improper termination as a manager of several McDonald's restaurants operated by defendant Macdo Foods, Inc. under franchise agreements with defendants McDonald's Corporation and McDonald's USA, LLC. Supreme Court properly granted defendants' respective motions to dismiss the complaint against them for failure to state a cause of action. On a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss, "[w]e accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiff[ ] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511 [1994] ). As the court properly determined, New York does not recognize a cause of action for unfair discharge. Indeed, it is well established that, "where an employment is for an indefinite term it is presumed to be a hiring at will which may be freely terminated by either party at any time for any reason or even for no reason," ( Murphy v. American Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 300, 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 448 N.E.2d 86 [1983] ), with exceptions not applicable here (see e.g. Executive Law § 296 ). Contrary to plaintiff's contention, "[t]ort causes of action alleging ... prima facie tort ‘cannot be allowed in circumvention of the unavailability of a tort claim for wrongful discharge or the contract rule against liability for discharge of an at-will employee’ " ( Rich v. CooperVision, Inc., 198 A.D.2d 860, 861, 604 N.Y.S.2d 429 [4th Dept. 1993], quoting Murphy, 58 N.Y.2d at 304, 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 448 N.E.2d 86 ; see Ingle v. Glamore Motor Sales, Inc., 73 N.Y.2d 183, 188–189, 538 N.Y.S.2d 771, 535 N.E.2d 1311 [1989] ; Peterec–Tolino v. Harap, 68 AD3d 1083, 1084, 892 N.Y.S.2d 154 [2d Dept. 2009] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.