Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The court properly granted summary judgment since the defendant proffered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that no triable issues of fact existed, and the plaintiff's papers in opposition were insufficient to demonstrate otherwise (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). We reject the plaintiff's assertion that there exists an issue of fact as to whether he relied upon provisions within the defendant's personnel manual which purportedly limited the grounds of his dismissal to just cause (see, Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 N.Y.2d 329; O'Connor v Eastman Kodak Co., 65 N.Y.2d 724; Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458; O'Reilly v Citibank, 198 A.D.2d 270; Porras v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 185 A.D.2d 784; Paruolo v Cohen, 167 A.D.2d 454). In addition, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the allegedly unlawful billing practices of the hospital "create[d] and present[ed] a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety" (Labor Law § 740 [a]; Remba v Federation Empl. Guidance Serv., 76 N.Y.2d 801; Connolly v Macklowe Real Estate Co., 161 A.D.2d 520; Lamagna v New York State Assn. for Help of Retarded Children, 158 A.D.2d 588; Easterson v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 156 A.D.2d 636). Sullivan, J.P., Copertino, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.