Seneca Knitting Mills Corp. v. Wilkes
| Decision Date | 23 May 1986 |
| Citation | 120 A.D.2d 955,502 N.Y.S.2d 844 |
| Parties | , 123 Lab.Cas. P 57,131 SENECA KNITTING MILLS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Louis H. WILKES, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, by Carolyn Nussbaum, Rochester, for appellant.
Woods, Oviatt, Gilman, Sturman & Clarke, by Donald O'Brien, Rochester, for respondent.
Before DILLON, P.J., and CALLAHAN, DENMAN, PINE and BALIO, JJ.
The court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant's tenth counterclaim. Defendant was an at-will employee since his employment was of unspecified duration, and as such, plaintiff had the unqualified right to discharge defendant for any reason other than a constitutionally impermissible purpose, a statutory proscription, or an express limitation in the individual contract of employment (see Matter of Tyson v. Hess, 109 A.D.2d 1068, 1069, 487 N.Y.S.2d 206). The statement in plaintiff's written rules and regulations, that "[q]uality and good workmanship will keep Seneca in business and make your job secure" does not constitute an express limitation on the right to terminate (cf. Tiranno v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 99 A.D.2d 675, 472 N.Y.S.2d 49). Nor does defendant's uncontroverted allegation that he was escorted from plaintiff company rise to the level of outrageous conduct necessary to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (see Murphy v. American Home Prod. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 303, 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 448 N.E.2d 86).
The court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a protective order for its 1981 through 1983 financial statements (see Matter of U.S. Pioneer Electronics Corp. [Nikko Elec. Corp. of Amer.] 47 N.Y.2d 914, 916, 419 N.Y.S.2d 484, 393 N.E.2d 478). CPLR 3101 requires disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, and plaintiff, in seeking unspecified compensatory damages for defendant's alleged misuse of an invention has made such evidence material and necessary. Plaintiff has not met its burden of proving that disclosure of the financial statements would be unreasonably prejudicial (see, e.g., Zimmerman v. Nassau Hosp., 76 A.D.2d 921, 429 N.Y.S.2d 262).
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified, affirmed, without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Best v. Guthrie Med. Grp.
... ... Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose, LLP, 251 A.D.2d ... 35, 40 [1st ... Seneca ... Knitting Mills Corp. v Wilkes, 120 A.D.2d 955, ... ...
-
Wornick Co. v. Casas
...them from the plant in the presence of their peers not sufficiently outrageous to support liability); Seneca Knitting Mills Corp. v. Wilkes, 120 A.D.2d 955, 502 N.Y.S.2d 844, 845 (1986) (escorting plaintiff from the premises upon his termination is not outrageous); Lapidus v. New York City ......
-
Cabell Cnty. Comm'n v. Whitt
...for an employer to remove a discharged employee from its premises under a security escort"); Seneca Knitting Mills Corp. v. Wilkes , 120 A.D.2d 955, 502 N.Y.S.2d 844, 845 (1986) (escorting a terminated employee from employer’s premises is not outrageous); Wornick Co. v. Casas , 856 S.W.2d 7......
-
Brooks v. Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
...771, 535 N.E.2d 1311; De Simone v. Skidmore Coll., supra, 159 A.D.2d at 928, 553 N.Y.S.2d 240; see also, Seneca Knitting Mills Corp. v. Wilkes, 120 A.D.2d 955, 502 N.Y.S.2d 844; Collins v. Hoselton Datsun, 120 A.D.2d 952, 503 N.Y.S.2d ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. WEISS, P......