Long Island University, Plaintiff(s) v. Bogdan Blazhkevych, Defendant(s). (2026)

Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment:

Papers

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

Affirmations in Support/Exhibits Annexed 1

Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition and Memorandum of Law 2

Plaintiff's Reply 3

Before this court is plaintiff's motion for summary judgment filed on May 20, 2026, the defendant's affirmation in opposition and memorandum of Law, both dated June 3, 2026, and the plaintiff's reply filed on June 8, 2026. The motion was taken on submission on June 11, 2026.

Facts of The Case

Plaintiff alleges that defendant applied for and was granted admission into the plaintiff's University and that he enrolled in Fall of 2021 (although the complaint states that he enrolled "Prior to and on or about January 1, 2022"). That the total charges assessed consist of "Tuition-Professional of $18,963.00, University Fee of $997, Late Payment Fees of $350, and Academic Scholarship, which redacted (sic) $11,000 from the total tuition amount, for a sum certain balance of $9,310.00".

It is further alleged that after applying all loans, credits and grants, there is still due a balance of $9,310 owed by defendant in tuition and other fees. On the other hand, defendant, who answered on 02/03/2026, did not deny attending the University, rather his defense is grounded on infancy or legal minority when he enrolled into plaintiff's University, insufficiency of plaintiff's supporting documents, and others. Defendant asserts that he was a minor at the time of attending the school, however he offered nothing by way of his age or date of birth at enrollment or at any time. Defendant also denied signing any agreement with the plaintiff.

Legal Standard

Under CPLR § 3212, any party may move for summary judgment after issue has been joined. Once the movant establishes a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the opponent to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial. Mere conclusions, unsubstantiated assertions, and self-serving allegations are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. See Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 (1986); Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 (1980).

"To obtain summary judgment it is necessary that the movant establish his cause of action or defense 'sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment' in his favor (CPLR 3212, subd. (b)), and he must do so by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form" Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra at 562 (quoting Friends of Animals v. Associated Furs Mfrs., 48 NY2d 1056, 1067-1068 (1979).

Discussion

As correctly stated by the parties, the relationship between an educational institution and its student is governed by an implied contract whose terms are typically found in the institution's catalogues, bulletins, and handbooks. See Vought v. Teachers Coll. Columbia Univ., 127 AD2d 654, 654-55 (2nd Dept 1987).

On the issue of the defendant age at enrollment, the law is that contracts executed by infants are voidable at their election. Upon reaching majority the infant "must disaffirm within a reasonable time after becoming of age, or his silence will be considered a ratification". In other words, where a contract has been executed, disaffirmance on the ground of infancy must occur within a reasonable time after attaining the age of 21 and ratification depends on the facts of the particular case. Career Placement of White Plains, Inc. v. Vaus, 77 Misc 2d 788, 791, 354 N.Y.S.2d 764 (Westchester Sup. Ct. 1974) (Quoting Sternlieb v. Normandie Nat. Securities Corp., 263 NY 245 at 248). Here, there is no evidence on the record tending to show defendant's age at that time of enrollment or any time before or thereafter. Neither side deemed it necessary to proffer defendant's age at the time of enrollment, therefore the court is unable to reach the issue of minority at enrollment.

In support of its position that defendant did in fact enrolled in its school and took courses resulting in the currently debt amount of $9,310 in tuition and fees, after giving him credit for financial scholarship, grants, etc., plaintiff produced the following documents, which are attached to the affidavit of its Director of Student Financial Services (DSFS), Kevin Shiner, who laid proper foundation for them:

Transcript showing courses/grade of defendant for Fall of 2021 (Exhibit B)

Account statement showing how the $9,310 figure was arrived at, after applying credits, dated, March 1, 2022. (Exhibit C)

Three undated Demand Letters. (Exhibit D).

Here, plaintiff produced courses taken and grades obtained for just one semester (Fall of 2021). Plaintiff does not state if defendant attended their university for only one semester or more semesters. Nor does plaintiff state if the total assessed amount against defendant ("Tuition-Professional of $18,963.00, University Fee of $997, Late Payment Fees of $350") represents tuition charges for just one semester or not. Further, plaintiff did not state if a completion certificate or degree was ever issued to defendant, or indeed any type of certificate was ever issued to him. Also missing in plaintiff's submissions are:

1. Promissory Note signed by defendant, whether electronic or not, if any

2. Budgetary breakdown

3. Bursar's Bill per semester

4. Estimated Family Contribution

5. Sudent Aid Index

6. Entrant and Exit Conference Reports

Plaintiff's Director of Student Financial Services (DSFS) did affirm that he had personal knowledge of the documents produced herewith, as they pertain to the defendant. He further testified that the documents were made in the regular course of plaintiff's business, and that they were made within a reasonable time. A proper foundation for the admission of the record was provided by the DSFS who had personal knowledge of the plaintiff's business practices and procedures. See Citibank, N.A. v Cabrera, 130 AD3d 861(2d Dept 2015).

Regardless of the sufficiency of the defendant's papers, the evidence proffered by plaintiff did not establish that plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff did not produce the Promissory Note or a statement that no such note was signed or exists; did not offer Bursar's Bill for any semester; did not produce Estimated Family Contribution and did not produce the Student Aid Index. These failures create substantial issues of facts for the factfinder to determine.

In light of the foregoing, plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden that would entitle it to summary judgment.

Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

Date:

Civ-GP-85

Hon. Chidi A. Eze

Civil Court Judge (NYC)

Chidi A. Eze, J.