Edwards v. Citibank, N.A.

Citation74 A.D.2d 553,425 N.Y.S.2d 327
PartiesDavid EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITIBANK, N. A., Defendant-Respondent.
Decision Date28 February 1980
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

J. W. Lubell, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.

D. Newcomb, New York City, for defendant-respondent.

Before MURPHY, P. J., and KUPFERMAN, SILVERMAN, BLOOM and LYNCH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 6, 1979 granting summary judgment to defendant, and the judgment entered thereon on August 13, 1979, both affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff was first employed by defendant on March 15, 1972. On November 14, 1974, he became part of defendant's international staff. His employment was terminated on February 9, 1978. This action followed.

The complaint sets forth three causes of action. The first purports to allege a breach of contract; the second, an alleged violation of the public policy of this State and of the United States; and the final cause is for a claimed violation of defendant's rights under the First and Fourteenth Articles of Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted and this appeal followed.

We are all in agreement that the second and third causes of action cannot survive the motion (Chin v. American T. & T. Co., 96 Misc.2d 1070, 1073, 410 N.Y.S.2d 737, 739, aff'd 70 A.D.2d 791, 416 N.Y.S.2d 160, lv. to app. den. 48 N.Y.2d 603, --- N.Y.S.2d ---, --- N.E.2d ---; Marinzulich v. National Bank of North America, App.Div. (Appeal # 7202, 1/14/80)). Our dissenting brother is in agreement with us that the first cause is defective in its present form. Nevertheless, he is of the opinion that conceivably a claim may be made out and, accordingly, he would modify to deny summary judgment on that count and grant leave to replead. We disagree.

It is undisputed that plaintiff's employment was without specific termination date. As such it was terminable at will (Parker v. Borock, 5 N.Y.2d 156, 182 N.Y.S.2d 577, 156 N.E.2d 297). The issuance of a manual by the employer, setting forth the conditions of employment, which may unilaterally be amended or withdrawn, does not create an equitable estoppel which would preclude the employer from terminating an employee's employment except in compliance with the manual. It does not create an obligation on the part of the employer to continue the employment of the employee for life, subject only to the conditions set forth in the manual (Chin v American T. & T. Co., supra; Marinzulich v. National Bank of North America, supra ), while leaving the employee free to terminate his employment at any time and for any or no reason.

We think that the dissent's reliance upon Brown v. American Council of Life Insurance (App.Div., Appeal # 6912, 11/28/79) and Williams v. Action for a Better Community, Inc., 51 A.D.2d 876, 380 N.Y.S.2d 138 (4th Dept.)) is misplaced. Brown involved the issue of whether the employee, a vice-president of defendant, had the right to rely on a memorandum fixing a specific termination date. In Williams the precise issue here tendered was not raised. There the defendant seems to have agreed that the employee manual imposed a contractual obligation upon it and sought to establish that the discharge was effected in conformity therewith. That case is not authority for the point here urged.

All concur, except KUPFERMAN, J., who dissents in part in a memorandum as follows:

The order and judgment appealed from should be modified to deny summary judgment to the extent of granting plaintiff leave to replead solely on the breach of contract claim, and as so modified, otherwise affirmed.

Plaintiff-appellant Edwards was an employee of defendant-respondent Citibank from March 1, 1972 until his discharge on February 9, 1978. In November, 1974, Edwards was assigned to Citibank's international...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Hinson v. Cameron
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1987
    ...Life Ins. Co., supra note 6; Johnson v. National Beef Packing Company, 220 Kan. 52, 551 P.2d 779 [1976]; Edwards v. Citibank, N.A., 74 A.D.2d 553, 425 N.Y.S.2d 327 [N.Y.Sup.Ct.1980] and Reynolds Manufacturing Company v. Mendoza, 644 S.W.2d 536 [Tex.Ct.App.1982].23 Okl.App., 569 P.2d 524 [19......
  • Burke v. Bevona
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • January 18, 1989
    ...492 N.Y.S.2d 9, 481 N.E.2d 549 (1985); King v. Cornell University, 81 A.D.2d 712, 439 N.Y.S.2d 445 (1981) (mem.); Edwards v. Citibank, N.A., 74 A.D.2d 553, 425 N.Y.S.2d 327 (mem.), appeal dismissed, 51 N.Y.2d 875, 433 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 414 N.E.2d 400 (1980); Chin v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 9......
  • Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Campbell
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • July 10, 1987
    ... ... D.2d 318, 470 N.Y.S.2d 599, aff'd, 63 N.Y.2d 541, 473 N.E.2d 11, 483 N.Y.S.2d 659 (1984); Edwards v. Citibank, N.A., 100 Misc.2d 59, 418 N.Y.S.2d 269 (1979), aff'd, 74 A.D.2d 553, 425 N.Y.S.2d 327, ... ...
  • Sherman v. St. Barnabas Hospital
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 29, 1982
    ...Greiner, 106 Misc.2d 564, 435 N.Y.S.2d 1005 (1980); Edwards v. Citibank, 100 Misc.2d 59, 418 N.Y. S.2d 269 (1979), aff'd, 74 A.D.2d 553, 425 N.Y.S.2d 327 (1st Dep't), appeal dismissed, 51 N.Y.2d 875, 414 N.E.2d 400, 433 N.Y.S.2d 1020 (1980). None of these cases is very instructive. In Murph......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT