Opinion
April 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.).
The language in the personnel manual relied on by plaintiff can be construed as a promise to terminate solely for cause only through a reading that relies heavily on inference. The limitation urged by plaintiff on an employer's otherwise unfettered right to terminate an employee at will must be express (see, Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458; see also, Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 N.Y.2d 329). Indeed, as the IAS Court pointed out, the manual was express in describing the employment as at will and in stating that it was not a contract or guarantee of employment. We have considered plaintiff's other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.