DAMON G. BARBER, plf-ap, v. DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC. def-res

9293. DAMON G. BARBER, plf-ap, v. DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC. def-res — Michael G. Berger, New York, for ap — Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, New York (Cameron Smith of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered July 14, 2011, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without cost.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the November 19, 2008 letter agreement setting forth the terms of his assignment in Hong Kong (the HK contract) did not expressly modify the at-will provision of the August 6, 2007 letter offering him employment (the offer letter), which explicitly provided that all terms and conditions of his employment were set forth in the offer letter and could only be modified by a written agreement or by a change in defendants’ personnel policies. The HK contract contained no provision that expressly promised plaintiff a fixed two-year position in Hong Kong or elsewhere. Indeed, paragraph 7 of the HK contract provided that defendants could terminate plaintiff’s Hong Kong assignment at any time and reassign him. Plaintiff has not identified, in either the offer letter or the HK contract, an express limitation on defendants’ right to discharge him (see Novinger v. Eden Park Health Servs., 167 AD2d 590, 591 [3d Dept 1990], lv denied 77 NY2d 810 [1991]). Accordingly, the fourth cause of action, which alleges that plaintiff was terminated at the end of the first year of the HK contract without cause and is entitled to his unpaid base salary for the second year, fails to state a cause of action (see Cron v. Hargo Fabrics, 91 NY2d 362, 367 [1998]). Plaintiff’s at-will employment also renders unviable his fifth cause of action, which alleges breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The terms of the HK contract were plain and clear, leaving plaintiff no room to argue mistaken intent or bad faith (compare Richbell Info. Servs. v. Jupiter Partners, 309 AD2d 288, 302 [1st Dept 2003]; see also Nikitovich v. O’Neal, 40 AD3d 300 [1st Dept 2007]).