Plaintiff, an at-will employee, worked as a security guard/fire safety director for a hotel in Manhattan. Plaintiff alleged that the three defendants, his supervisors, induced the management of the hotel to discharge him on the ground that he had refused a direct order to transport items from the Hotel's lost and found storage room to its security office. Plaintiff claimed that this order violated the law and hotel policy regarding the return of lost items. As a result, plaintiff commenced this action alleging that defendants had tortiously interfered with his employment relationship with the hotel. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7).
In New York State, the at-will employment doctrine is a judicially created common-law rule (see, Wieder v. Skala, 80 N.Y.2d 628, 633). It is well settled that "where an employment is for an indefinite term it is presumed to be a hiring at-will which may be freely terminated by either party at any time for any reason or even for no reason" (Murphy v. American Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 300; accord, Wieder, supra;see also, Sabetay v. Sterling Drug Inc., 69 N.Y.2d 329, 333). In holding that there is no cause of action in tort for abusive or wrongful discharge of an at-will employee, the Court of Appeals has declined to allow a plaintiff "to evade the employment at-will rule and relationship by recasting his cause of action in the garb of a tortious interference with his employment" (Ingle v. Glamore Motor Sales, 73 N.Y.2d 183, 188-89). Where, as here, the parties are all employees of the same company, the case law is clear that at-will agreements are classified as only "prospective contractual relations" and therefore cannot support a claim for tortious interference with existing contracts (see, Guard-Life Corp. v. Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp, 50 N.Y.2d 183, 191-92; Snyder v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., 252 A.D.2d 294, 299; American Preferred Prescription, Inc. v. Health Management, Inc., 252 A.D.2d 414, 417). Since plaintiff cannot "bootstrap the threshold deficiency in a wrongful discharge claim" to his instant claim for tortious interference with an employment relationship (see, Ingle, supra, at 188), the Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.