| Wood v Long Is. Pipe Supply, Inc. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02381 [82 AD3d 1088] |
| March 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Frank Wood, Appellant, v Long Island Pipe Supply, Inc., etal., Respondents. |
—[*1]
In an action to recover damages for breach of an employment agreement, the plaintiff appealsfrom an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Driscoll, J.), entered February 18, 2010,which, in effect, granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss thecomplaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff and the defendants entered into an employment agreement whereby the plaintiffagreed to serve as the defendants' product manager in their Albany facility for a five-year term,commencing December 1, 2001. The agreement specified that it was intended to be "a completeand exclusive statement of the terms of the arrangement between the parties" and could not bechanged orally.
After the expiration of the five-year term of employment, the plaintiff continued hisemployment with the defendants as their product manager upon the same material terms until hewas terminated on December 16, 2008. The plaintiff commenced this action against thedefendants to recover damages resulting from their alleged breach of the agreement. Thedefendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to, inter alia, CPLR 3211 (a) (1). TheSupreme Court, in effect, granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss thecomplaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1).
"A motion to dismiss a complaint based on documentary evidence 'may be appropriatelygranted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff's factual allegations,conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law' " (Stein v Garfield Regency Condominium, 65 AD3d 1126, 1128[2009], quoting Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002];see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]; All Is. Media, Inc. v Creative AD Worx, Inc., 79 AD3d 677, 678[2010]; Wild Oaks, LLC v Joseph A.Beehan, Jr. Gen. Contr., Inc., 77 AD3d 924 [2010]).
"New York adheres to the traditional common-law rule that absent an agreement establishinga fixed duration, an employment relationship is presumed to be a hiring at will, terminable [*2]at any time by either party" (Monheit v Petrocelli Elec. Co., Inc., 73 AD3d 714, 715 [2010];see Horn v New York Times, 100 NY2d 85, 90-91 [2003]). While the common lawrecognizes a presumption that parties intend to renew an employment agreement for an additionalyear where the employee continues to work after expiration of that agreement pursuant to thesame material terms (see Goldman vWhite Plains Ctr. for Nursing Care, LLC, 11 NY3d 173, 177 [2008]; Cinefot Intl.Corp. v Hudson Photographic Indus., 13 NY2d 249, 252 [1963]; Geller v Reuben Gittelman Hebrew DaySchool, 34 AD3d 730, 731 [2006]), when the terms of the original agreement require anew contract to extend the term of employment, the presumption is rebutted (see Goldman vWhite Plains Ctr. for Nursing Care, LLC, 11 NY3d at 177-178).
Here, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, granted that branch of the defendants' motionwhich was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), since the agreement executedby the parties clearly expressed that the term of the plaintiff's employment was for five yearscommencing December 1, 2001, and that the written agreement completely encompassed theagreement between them. Moreover, any changes to the contract were required to be in writing.Since "[a] contract will be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the parties as expressed inthe language of the agreement" (Johnston v MGM Emerald Enters., Inc., 69 AD3d 674, 677 [2010];see Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 NY2d 562, 569 [2002]), the Supreme Courtproperly determined that the language of the contract required the parties to enter into a newcontract to extend the plaintiff's employment (see Goldman v White Plains Ctr. for NursingCare, LLC, 11 NY3d at 178). Consequently, the agreement wholly refuted the plaintiff'sallegations that the contract was renewed and conclusively established that, at the time of histermination, no employment agreement between the parties was in effect, and the plaintiff'semployment was at-will (id.). Florio, J.P., Eng, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur. [PriorCase History: 2010 NY Slip Op 30384(U).]