of future intentions, such as job security or in this case, future changes, is deemed unreasonable as a matter of law. See Arias v. Women in Need, Inc. 274 A.D.2d 353, 712 N.Y.S.2d 103, 103 (1st Dep’t 2000) (“Plaintiff could not establish the reasonable reliance element since the offered employment was at-will.”); Marino v. Oakwood Care Ctr., 5 A.D.3d 740, 774 N.Y.S.2d 562, 563 (2d Dep’t 2004) (“Since the plaintiff was offered only at-will employment, she cannot establish reasonable reliance.”); Garwood v. Sheen & Shine, Inc., 175 A.D.2d 569, 572 N.Y.S.2d 237, 237-38 (4th Dep’t 1991) (affirming dismissal of claim that employer convinced plaintiff to turn down higher paying job by offering assurances of job security and increased compensation); Dalton, 520 N.Y.S.2d at 766 (<HOLDING>). Because Brady is an at-will employee, he
holding that the trial court should have dismissed the employees breach of contract claim holding that employees claim of detrimental reliance on employers alleged representations should be dismissed because employee was atwill holding that although incorrect drug report was detrimental to employee employee had no claim against hospital because the report was not intended to primarily or directly benefit the employee holding that employers promise to recall laid off employee could not support fraud claim because employee did not present any evidence of detrimental reliance such as turning down other offers of employment holding county employee with unenforceable contract was atwill employee