From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ameral v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 17, 1993
194 A.D.2d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

June 17, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Clinton County (Plumadore, J.).


Plaintiff was employed by defendant The Gap, Inc. as a store manager until January 25, 1991, at which time she was terminated from her position by defendant Donna Johnson, plaintiff's supervisor and a district manager for The Gap. Plaintiff thereafter commenced this wrongful discharge action alleging, inter alia, that her termination was in violation of certain guidelines set forth in The Gap's employee handbook. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss as to The Gap but concluded that plaintiff had a cause of action against Johnson for tortious interference with contract and granted plaintiff leave to amend her complaint in this regard. Defendants appeal from so much of Supreme Court's order as denied their motion to dismiss the complaint against Johnson.

We note that plaintiff has neither filed a responding brief nor advised this Court of her intention to proceed on the record. Indeed, the only communication received by this Court is a letter from plaintiff's counsel indicating that it was her understanding that plaintiff did not wish to proceed with this action. We deem plaintiff's actions in this regard to be a concession that the relief sought on appeal should be granted (see, Matter of Faith AA., 139 A.D.2d 22, 25), and we therefore grant Johnson the relief to which she is entitled. In any event, having properly concluded that plaintiff was an employee at will, Supreme Court erred in finding that plaintiff had a cause of action against Johnson for tortious interference with contract. Having failed to plead the existence of a valid contract, plaintiff has no cause of action for tortious interference with contract (see, Ingle v. Glamore Motor Sales, 73 N.Y.2d 183, 188-189; Hurwitch v. Kercull, 182 A.D.2d 1013, 1014). Nor does Johnson's alleged conduct support a cause of action for either intentional infliction of emotional distress or prima facie tort (see generally, Hurwitch v. Kercull, supra, at 1014-1015). Accordingly, the complaint against Johnson must be dismissed.

Weiss, P.J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint against defendant Donna Johnson and granted plaintiff leave to amend her complaint; motion granted to that extent and complaint dismissed against said defendant; and, as so modified, affirmed.


Summaries of

Ameral v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 17, 1993
194 A.D.2d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Ameral v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:JUSTINE AMERAL, Respondent, v. DONNA JOHNSON, Individually and as District…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 17, 1993

Citations

194 A.D.2d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
599 N.Y.S.2d 332

Citing Cases

Weaver v. Town of Rush

The essential elements of that cause of action are the existence of a valid contract between plaintiff and a…

VILLEGAS v. FEDER

In support of his application, Dr. Getzin has submitted the affirmation of Dr. Kevin Curley, a Board…