In order to obtain summary judgment, the movant must establish his cause of action or defense sufficiently, by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form, to warrant the court to direct judgment in his favor as a matter of law. On the other hand, to defeat a summary judgment motion, the opposing party must show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact. Thus, on a motion for summary judgment the court's function is not to resolve issues of fact or to determine matters of credibility but rather to determine whether issues of fact exist precluding summary judgment (see, Roth v. Barreto, 289 AD2d 557, 735 NYS2d 197 [2001]; O'Neill v. Fishkill, 134 AD2d 487, 521 NYS2d 272 [1987]). Nevertheless, mere conclusions or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient to raise triable issues of fact (Zuckerman v. New York, 49 NY2d 557, 427 NYS2d 595 [1980]).
An employer may be deemed to have constructively discharged an employee if the employer breaches the employee's contract to fill a particular position by unjustifiably reducing the employee's rank or salary, or materially changing the employee's duties under the employment contract (Rudman v. Cowles Communications, Inc., 30 NY2d 1, 330 NYS2d 33 [1972]; Aurielen Lintermans, Inc., v. Resca, 222 AD2d 253, 653 NYS2d 23 [1995]; Lynch v. Pharmaceutical Discovery Corp., 208 AD2d 906, 617 NYS2d 883 [1994]; Zeumer v. Fire Burglary Instruments, 210 AD2d 318, 619 NYS2d 782 [1994]; Hondares v. TSS-Seedman's Stores Inc., 151 AD2d 411, 543 NYS2d 442 [1989]). Constructive discharge may also be evidenced by the fact that the employer has made the employee's working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel forced to resign (Batra v. D'Youville College, 2001 NY App Div LEXIS 1750; Romano v. Basicnet, Inc., 238 AD2d 910, 661 NYS2d 135 [1997]; Fischer v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 195 AD2d 222, 607 NYS2d 309 [1994]).
Notwithstanding Excelaire's contention that the defendant voluntarily resigned because he found more lucrative employment elsewhere, defendant Wolkiewicz has demonstrated that Excelaire unilaterally and materially changed his duties as pilot under their employment contract and made his working conditions so intolerable that he was forced into involuntary resignation (Rudman v. Cowles Communications, Inc., supra; Aurielen Lintermans, Inc., v. Resca, supra; Lynch v. Pharmaceutical Discovery Corp., supra; Zeumer v. Fire Burglary Instruments, supra; Hondares v. TSS-Seedman's Stores Inc., supra; see also Romano v. Basicnet, Inc., supra; Fischer v. KPMG Peat Marwick, supra). The employment contract explicitly stated that Wolkiewicz would be hired as a pilot and work in that capacity for at least one year. Although Excelaire's September 19, 2003 letter notified defendant Wolkiewicz that his aircraft would be downed for maintenance and he would be placed on a part-time status with a sixty percent decrease in his pay for four to eight weeks until the aircraft was repaired, the uncontradicted evidence indicates that during the four months that followed the defendant was neither reassigned to another aircraft nor notified of any efforts to find him another commission or reinstate him in another full time pilot position. Excelaire's letter also advised defendant Wolkiewicz that his position would be terminated if he did not accept the "alternative arrangement" outlined in the letter. After eight weeks passed and without any improvement of his working conditions in sight not only did Excelaire breach the terms of its own purported "alternative arrangement", but defendant Wolkiewicz was constructively discharged and forced to resign due to the intolerable work conditions under which he found himself (Zeumer v. Fire Burglary Instruments, supra; Fischer v. KPMG Peat Marwick, supra, Romano v. Basicnet, Inc., supra; see also Hondares v. TSS-Seedman's Stores Inc., supra). The plaintiff has also failed to raise any triable issue of fact warranting denial of defendant's summary judgment motion (see, Zuckerman v. New York, supra). Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint is granted