DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the defendants offered her at-will employment. New York continues to adhere to the traditional common-law rule that absent an agreement establishing a fixed duration, an employment relationship is presumed to be a hiring at will, terminable at any time by either party ( see Horn v. New York Times, 100 N.Y.2d 85, 90-91; Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, 69 N.Y.2d 329, 333). Here, it is undisputed that the defendants offered the plaintiff the position of Director of Social Work at a skilled nursing facility which was still under construction. The plaintiff did not allege that the parties entered into an agreement which required the defendants to employ her for a definite and specified term, or which otherwise limited the defendants' right to change the terms of their employment offer by deferring her proposed starting date. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff was merely a prospective employee at will.
Furthermore, since the plaintiff was offered only at-will employment, she cannot establish reasonable reliance, a necessary element to recover damages on theories of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel ( see Arias v. Women in Need, 274 A.D.2d 353; Tannehill v. Paul Stuart, Inc., 226 A.D.2d 117; Clark v. Helmsley Windsor Hotel, 214 A.D.2d 365; Mayer v. Publishers Clearing House, 205 A.D.2d 506; Bower v. Atlis Sys., 182 A.D.2d 951; cf. Navaretta v. Group Health, 191 A.D.2d 953; Stewart v. Jackson Nash, 976 F.2d 86).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., FLORIO, KRAUSMAN and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.