R.B.; R.B., by and through his mother and natural guardian F.B., Claimant(s), v. The P. Schools, Defendant(s). (2026)

I. Background

Claimant commenced the instant small claims action against Defendant, a school at which Claimant's four (4) children were enrolled at, seeking money damages in the amount of $10,000.00 with interest for alleged breach of contract and defamation. Defendant school is no longer in operation as of July 31, 2025. On August 5, 2025, the matter proceeded to a bench trial, where Claimant appeared pro se and Defendant appeared by counsel.

Claimant introduced two (2) exhibits, marked Exhibits 1-2, which were admitted into evidence. Defendant introduced six (6) exhibits, marked Exhibits A-F, which were admitted into evidence. The authenticity or the completeness of the content of the exhibits was not in dispute. Claimant testified on her own behalf and also offered the testimony of R. B. ("R.B."), her son. Defendant offered the testimonies of Smith ("Smith") and Pressley ("Pressley"), former employees of Defendant.

II. Testimonies

1) Testimony of Claimant

Claimant testified that her four (4) children were enrolled at Defendant's school. Claimant testified that one of her children, R.B., was wrongfully accused of stealing from his eighth-grade teacher, Rivera ("Rivera"), the contents of her wallet, which included all her credit cards and driver's license, and that such credit cards had been used at a clothing store and a candy store. Claimant testified that Defendant found R.B. to be at fault without conducting a proper investigation into the matter. According to Claimant, R.B. was bullied by several students at school a few days later and a faculty member failed to intervene despite being on the scene. Claimant testified that she received notification from Defendant that R.B. was to be suspended from the school for a few days. Claimant testified that she withdrew her children from Defendant school on October 2, 2023. Claimant testified that she was suing for reimbursement of the tuition paid to Defendant.

In support of such claims, Claimant submitted a copy of the 2023-2024 Parent, Guardian, and Student Handbook ("Handbook") (see Plaintiff's Exhibit 1); a series of handwritten letters from Claimant addressed to Defendant's faculty members (see Plaintiff's Exhibit 2); email communications between Rivera and the parents of children attending the school (see Plaintiff's Exhibit 2); email communications between Claimant and Coppola, Defendant's counsel (see Plaintiff's Exhibit 2);

2) Testimony of R.B., Claimant's son

R.B. testified that he was not enrolled at Defendant's school for the entire duration of the 2023-2024 academic school year. R.B. testified that he did not steal the content of River's wallet and that he only became aware of the incident upon Rivera informing the class of the incident. R.B. testified that he had been at a high school function at the time of the incident with Claimant and his sister. R.B. testified that he was suspended from the school for three (3) days.

3) Testimony of Smith, the former Superintendent

Smith ("Smith") testified that she was employed as a Superintendent by a school management company that oversaw Defendant school at the time of the alleged incident. Smith testified that Claimant's four (4) children attended Defendant school during the 2023-2024 academic year. Smith testified that Defendant provided Claimant with a copy of Handbook prior to R.B.'s enrollment at Defendant's school. Smith testified that Claimant electronically signed an acknowledgement whereby Claimant alleged to have read and consented to the contents of the Handbook. Smith testified that the section of the Handbook entitled "Discipline Code for Student Conduct" provided that for serious actions that caused significant harm to the community such as stealing, a student may be immediately suspended for a period of one to five days. Smith further testified that threats of violence or harm such as shooting communicated by a student would result in the Superintendent being notified of such student's actions, resulting in a determination of the course of action to be taken. Smith testified that R.B. and other students from the school were involved in a conflict that resulted in R.B. making threats to "shoot the school up." Upon R.B. making the alleged threats, Smith was informed of the incident pursuant to Defendant school's procedures.

4) Testimony of Pressley, the former principal of Defendant

Pressley ("Pressley") testified that she was the principal of Defendant at the time of the alleged incident. Pressley testified that Claimant enrolled her four (4) children at Defendant's school, and that R.B. was enrolled for eighth-grade. Pressley testified that Claimant's four (4) children attended the school from September 7, 2023 through October 2, 2023.

According to Pressley, Rivera reported that one of the students in her class stole all her credit cards and driver's license, and that purchases with her credit card were attempted. Defendant investigated the matter and concluded that R.B. was at fault. Pressley testified that R.B. and other students from the school were involved in a conflict that resulted in R.B. making threats to "shoot the school up." Pressley testified that three students from the school that witnessed the threat drafted handwritten letters documenting the incident. Subsequently, Defendant decided to suspend R.B. for three (3) days. Pressley testified that she notified Claimant regarding the suspension for the verbal threat and also informed Claimant that upon R.B.'s return from that suspension, he would need to serve a second suspension for stealing contents of Rivera's wallet. Thereafter, Claimant notified Defendant in a handwritten letter dated October 2, 2023 that she was voluntarily withdrawing her four (4) children from Defendant school. Pressley further testified that due to Claimant's withdrawal of R.B., he did not serve the suspension for his severe verbal threat or his anticipated suspension for stealing.

In support of Defendant's claims, Defendant submitted the following exhibits: a copy of Claimant's affidavit in opposition of Defendant's motion to dismiss with supporting exhibits (see Defendant's Exhibit A-B); the Handbook acknowledgement form signed by Claimant (see Defendant's Exhibit C); handwritten letters from students (see Defendant's Exhibit D); email communications between Rivera and the parents of children attending the school and a letter from (see Defendant's Exhibit E).

5) Testimony of Defendant's counsel on behalf of Defendant

Defendant's counsel testified that Claimant paid $860.00 for tuition fees, and that Claimant still owed Defendant school the amount of $195.00 at the time of her withdrawal of her children from the school.

III. Discussion

1) Claim for breach of contract

In the case at bar, Claimant sought reimbursement for tuition that Claimant F. B. paid for her children to attend Defendant school.

To prevail on a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a contract, the performance pursuant to the contract, the breach of contractual obligations, and damages resulting from such breach (see Harris v Seward Park Housing Corp., 79 AD3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2010] [internal citation omitted]).

In determining the existence of an enforceable contract, the following elements must be established: "an offer, acceptance of the offer, consideration, mutual assent, and an intent to be bound" (see Kowalchuk v Stroup, 61 AD3d 118, 121, 873 NYS2d 43 [2009] citing 22 NY Jur 2d, Contracts § 9; see also Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP. v. Duane Reade, 98 AD3d 403, 950 N.Y.S.2d 8 [1st Dept 2012]). It is well established that "an objective meeting of the minds" and "a manifestation of mutual assent sufficiently definite to assure that the parties are truly in agreement with respect to all material terms" are required to create a binding contract (see Matter of Express Indus. & Term. Corp. v New York State DOT, 93 NY2d 584, 589, 715 N.E.2d 1050, 693 N.Y.S.2d 857 [1999] citing Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v Schumacher 52 NY2d 105, 109 [1981]).

Based on the parties' testimony and exhibits admitted, the Court finds that Claimant failed to establish her prima facie case. The section of the Handbook entitled, "Financial Policies" states, in pertinent part:

"Tuition is an annual fee that may be paid in monthly installments . . . Tuition is billed in monthly installments throughout the year, beginning with the month of August until the month of May. If a family chooses to withdraw their child(ren) from the school, partial or full month tuition refunds will not be granted if the child(ren) attended one or more days that month . . .

Should you decide to withdraw your child, the following policy applies: . . . If an family chooses to withdraw their child(ren) from the school once they begin attending, the family tuition obligation will be calculated as follows: . . .

October 30% family obligation; 70% of tuition forgiven . . .

Calculations will be based on the last month in which the child(ren) attended one or more days of school. If payment has been made in excess of the family obligation, a refund will be granted upon written request to the school."

(see Plaintiff's Exhibit 1)

The section of the Handbook entitled "Summary Statement" states in pertinent part:

"By the student's attendance at the school, a student and his or her parents and guardians acknowledge the important obligations and restrictions contained in this handbook and agree to be bound by the terms of this handbook . . .

Another important right that a student and his or her parents or guardians give up when they decide to have a student attend this school is the right to sue the school, the parish, the Catholic School Region Corporation, or the Archdiocese of New York, and/or any individuals acting on behalf of the school, such as the school administrators, teachers, staff or any of their agents for any matter relating to academic or disciplinary decision or other matters covered within this handbook."

(see Plaintiff's Exhibit 1)

Further, the acknowledgement form signed by Claimant states, in pertinent part:

"I acknowledge that by signing this form, I have received a copy of the Parent/Student Handbook (which includes the Summary Statement, the Technology Use/Telecommunications Agreement, and the Textbook/Software/Hardware Request Form) and that I have read and consented to it."

(see Defendant's Exhibit C)

Here, it is not at dispute that (1) Claimant F. B.'s four (4) children began attending the 2023-2024 school year; and (2) Claimant F. B. notified Defendant in a handwritten letter dated October 2, 2023 that she was withdrawing her four (4) children from Defendant school. Claimant was made aware of Defendant's policies stated in the Handbook when Claimant F. B. signed the acknowledgement form (see Defendant's Exhibit C). Pursuant to the Handbook, Claimant would be responsible for 30% of the tuition for the year as she withdrew her children in October 2023. Claimant failed to corroborate her testimony with proof of monetary damages sustained by her (see Paulson v Kotsilimbas, 124 AD2d 513, 514 [1st Dept 1986] [Holding that it is a plaintiff's burden to prove his damages through competent evidence]). Given the "clear and unambiguous" tuition provision stated in the Handbook issued by Defendant and the acknowledgement form signed by Claimant, the Court finds that Claimant failed to establish her entitlement to the reimbursement of tuition fees (see Montanez v. Fedkids Child Care Ctr., 2003 NY Slip Op 51318(U) [App Term 1st Dept 2003]).

Claimant's complaint for breach of contract is dismissed.

2) Claim for defamation

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that a prior court issued an order permitting Claimant F. B. to amend the statement of claim to add "F. B. as mother and natural guardian of R.S. B." and to file the amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of the order (see Decision/Order of Hon. B. L., dated February 19, 2025). Defendant's counsel stated during trial that Claimant failed to file an amended complaint as per the February 19, 2025 order and that as such, Defendant was not provided with sufficient notice of the defamation claim.

Even if the Court were to consider the defamation claim, which this Court is not, such defamation claim would have been denied. "To prove a claim for defamation, a plaintiff must show: (1) a false statement that is (2) published to a third party (3) without privilege or authorization, and that (4) causes harm, unless the statement is one of the types of publications actionable regardless of harm" (see Stepanov v Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 120 AD3d 28, 34 [1st Dept 2014] [internal citation omitted]). The challenged statement must "expose the plaintiff to public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace, or induce an evil opinion of him in the minds of right-thinking persons, and to deprive him of their friendly intercourse in society" (see Rinaldi v Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 42 NY2d 369, 379 [1977] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

Here, while the Court finds that the testimonies of Claimant F. B. and R.B. were credible and that Defendant failed to provide sufficient proof to the B. family that R.B. was at fault for the stealing of Rivera's credit cards and driver's license, Claimant failed to plead any damages as to the alleged defamation (see Paulson at 514). Accordingly, Claimant's complaint on the defamation claim is dismissed.

On another note, however, the Court finds that Defendant's submission of the handwritten letters by the students at the school attesting that they witnessed firsthand that R.B. stated his intention to "shoot the school up" were not sworn and thus inadmissible as hearsay (see Defendant's Exhibit D); and that Defendant school blamed R.B. to have stolen Rivera's wallet was not supported by proper investigation.

IV. Order

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED that Claimant's complaint is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice after trial.

This constitutes the DECISION and ORDER of the Court.

Dated: April 9, 2026

County of New York

Hon. Wendy Changyong Li

Judge of the Civil Court

Wendy Changyong Li, J.