Opinion
April 11, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly determined that as a regular substitute teacher, the plaintiff had no contractual or legal rights to employment with the defendant and that he failed to state a cause of action for abusive or wrongful discharge (see, Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 N.Y.2d 329; O'Connor v Eastman Kodak Co., 65 N.Y.2d 724; Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 297-301; see also, Labor Law § 740; Givens, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 30, Labor Law § 740, at 545). In addition, we find that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action under any other statute set forth in his complaint or in his amended notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 682, [4]; §§ 683, 684; Matter of Van Heusen v Board of Educ., 26 A.D.2d 721, 722; Matter of Pinto v Wynstra, 22 A.D.2d 914; Nassau Ch. v Board of Educ., 63 Misc.2d 49; see also, Labor Law §§ 210, 219, 704). Thus, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.