It is the essence of a cause of action, not its form, which determines the requisite elements which must be alleged and the applicable Statute of Limitations ( Trott v Merit Dept. Store, 106 A.D.2d 158, 160; Williams v Arpie, 56 A.D.2d 689, affd 44 N.Y.2d 689). Here, plaintiff cannot circumvent the rules of employment-at-will and the one year Statute of Limitations for intentional torts by claiming, without any support in the record, that a third, albeit closely-related party tortiously interfered with his employment ( Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 303-304; Matter of Entertainment Partners Group v Davis, 198 A.D.2d 63; Williams v Arpie, supra). Here, the record demonstrates that plaintiff, in essence, complains of the termination of his employment by his employer more than four years prior to commencement of this action.
Finally, there can be no claim of lack of notice to plaintiff here as the IAS Court converted defendants' motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment pursuant to plaintiff's cross motion ( compare, Dannasch v Bifulco, 184 A.D.2d 415).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.