After review of the record, we find that plaintiff's claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress were properly dismissed because such causes of action may not be interposed as a means of circumventing this jurisdiction's continuing refusal to recognize a cause of action for wrongful discharge (see, Ullmann v. Norma Kamali, Inc., 207 A.D.2d 691, 692, citing Murphy v. American Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 303-304).
The claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress did not set forth the requisite extreme and outrageous conduct (see, Howell v. New York Post Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115, 121-122), and, even if viewed as a cause of action for negligent retention and supervision, was properly dismissed because, as the IAS Court observed, plaintiff failed to set forth any facts tending to demonstrate that defendants cooperative corporation and management company had notice of the allegedly objectionable conduct of defendant resident manager.
We have considered appellant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.