Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the application is denied.
The courts of this State have not countenanced a cause of action to recover damages for wrongful discharge based on provisions in a personnel policy manual absent proof of an express agreement limiting the employer's right to discharge at-will employees upon which the employee relied to his or her detriment (see, Scheiber v St. John's Univ., 195 A.D.2d 544; Baker v Citibank, 178 A.D.2d 627; Paolucci v Adult Retardates Ctr., 182 A.D.2d 681; Paruolo v Cohen, 167 A.D.2d 454; Scordo v Scaturro Supermarkets, 160 A.D.2d 932; Marvin v Kent Nursing Home, 153 A.D.2d 553). Accordingly, the petitioner has not demonstrated facts which fairly indicate that she has some cause of action against the appellant which warrants pre-action disclosure (see, Stewart v Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 3 A.D.2d 582, 583; see also, Liberty Imports v Bourguet, 146 A.D.2d 535; Matter of Gleich v Kissinger, 111 A.D.2d 130, 131; Hoffman v Batridge, 155 Misc.2d 862; Hill v Springer, 132 Misc.2d 1012). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and Hart, JJ., concur.