Opinion
April 2, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, First Department.
While plaintiff's allegation, that defendant's false representation fraudulently induced her to leave her employment with another retailer, sets forth an injury separate from that alleged with respect to her insufficient breach of contract claim for wrongful termination by defendant ( see, Stewart v. Jackson Nash, 976 F.2d 86, 88), the wrongful act alleged in support of the fraud claim does not differ from the purely contract-related allegation that defendant did not intend to perform at the time it entered into the agreement, and therefore fails to state a cause of action ( see, Nagle v. Shearson Lehman Bros., 190 A.D.2d 568, 569; Grant v. DCA Food Indus., 124 A.D.2d 909, 910, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 612; cf., Navaretta v. Group Health, 191 A.D.2d 953, 955). Moreover, it cannot be said that plaintiff reasonably relied on defendant's representation, because the offered employment was at will ( see, Demov, Morris, Levin Shein v Glantz, 53 N.Y.2d 553, 557-558; Bower v. Atlis Sys., 182 A.D.2d 951, 953, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 758).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
Kupferman, J., dissents and would reverse for the reasons stated by Omansky, J., and upon the dissenting opinion of Miller, J., at the Appellate Term.