Melissa Phillip, Appellant, v. Leman Manhattan Preparatory School, Respondent. (2026)

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $5,561.47.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $5,561.47. At an inquest, at which defendant did not appear, plaintiff testified that, on August 12, 2021, she signed an enrollment contract with defendant, a private school, for her high-school age daughter to attend defendant during the 2021-2022 school year. The enrollment contract provided that the "tuition deposit" was nonrefundable; that, to cancel a student's enrollment, a parent was required to notify defendant "in writing via registered mail or a nationally-recognized priority courier"; and that, in the event that defendant received notice of a cancellation more than 10 days after the signing of the enrollment contract, the parent would be responsible for "100% of the Tuition and Fees as set forth in this Tuition Schedule." Plaintiff made two separate payments to defendant towards her daughter's tuition: $3,862.13 on August 14, 2021, and $1,699.34 by September 1, 2021, for a total of $5,561.47.

In emails dated August 13 and August 27, 2021, defendant informed plaintiff about defendant's requirements respecting compliance with New York State Department of Health regulations, including the completion of health forms and providing defendant with immunization records; the forms the email referenced had to be uploaded to a specified website. Defendant also informed plaintiff in those emails about its daily Covid-19 screening requirement and other Covid-19 safety protocols. The emails did not state that defendant had a Covid-19 vaccination policy. Plaintiff testified that she had complied with defendant's health and safety requirements.

However, on September 9, 2021, plaintiff and her daughter were not permitted to enter defendant school for an orientation program. In an email exchange the same day, defendant's employee informed plaintiff that defendant was requiring all students to be vaccinated against Covid-19, and that, unless she had a medical exemption from such vaccination, plaintiff's daughter would not be permitted to attend. Plaintiff declined to have her daughter vaccinated against Covid-19 and her daughter was refused admission. Plaintiff brought this action to obtain a refund of the tuition money she had paid to defendant and argued, in effect, that by imposing a new, extra-contractual condition on her daughter's attendance at the school, to which she had not consented, defendant had breached or voided the enrollment contract. Following the unopposed inquest, the Civil Court (Jill R. Epstein, J.) dismissed the action, based upon plaintiff's failure to prove her compliance with contractual "termination requirements."

In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). At a small claims inquest, "the plaintiff is required to make out a prima facie case, failing which dismissal is warranted" (Branciforte v Mejia, 85 Misc 3d 133[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 50476[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2025]; see also Scher v 24 Hour Fitness, 81 Misc 3d 129[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 51245[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2023]).

We note that neither the Public Health Law pertaining to immunization requirements nor the regulations promulgated thereunder imposed a requirement that children attending New York schools be vaccinated against Covid-19 (see Public Health Law § 2164; see also 8 NYCRR 136.3). Thus, although defendant had referenced the New York State Department of Health Regulations, that reference alone did not support defendant's Covid-19 vaccination requirement. Plaintiff's testimony at the inquest of this small claims action established that, by refusing to admit plaintiff's daughter to its school based on an extra-contractual vaccination requirement to which plaintiff never consented, defendant breached the enrollment contract. The contractual prohibition against refunds in the event of a parent's cancellation of the student's enrollment is inapplicable here, where defendant breached the contract by denying admission to plaintiff's daughter. Plaintiff thus established, prima facie, her cause of action for a refund of the $5,561.47 that she had paid to defendant. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the Civil Court's dismissal of the action based on its interpretation of the enrollment contract failed to render substantial justice between the parties (see CCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $5,561.47.

BUGGS, J.P., MUNDY and LIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: September 18, 2026