537 F.Supp.3d 584
S.D.N.Y.2021Background
- Plaintiff Czigany Beck enrolled at Manhattan College and paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester, which began in January and was scheduled to end in mid-May.
- In March 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and state orders, Manhattan College moved classes online, cancelled most campus events, closed many facilities, and required most on-campus residents to vacate.
- Beck filed a putative class action alleging breach of an implied educational contract (for in-person instruction and campus access), unjust enrichment, conversion, and violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349–350, seeking pro rata refunds of tuition/fees.
- The College’s website/fees materials described campus-based experiences and a mandatory Comprehensive Fee described as nonrefundable in the Fees Glossary (attached to the Answer).
- On a Rule 12(c) motion, the court dismissed the breach‑of‑contract claims, conversion claim, consumer protection claims, and the unjust enrichment claim as to fees, but allowed Beck’s unjust enrichment claim seeking a tuition refund to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract (tuition) — whether an implied contract guaranteed in-person instruction | Beck: College promised in-person classes and campus access via website, syllabi, and past practice | College: No specific written promise; advertising and custom do not create enforceable term | Dismissed — statements were general marketing, not specific contractual promises |
| Breach of contract (fees) — whether fees created enforceable promise to provide campus services | Beck: Comprehensive Fee covers health center, activities, athletics, etc. | College: Fees Glossary labels Comprehensive Fee as mandatory and nonrefundable; no contractual promise to refund | Dismissed — governed by explicit nonrefundable fee term |
| Unjust enrichment (tuition) — whether equity requires pro rata tuition refund for online instruction | Beck: College saved expenses and received CARES Act funds; retention of full tuition is inequitable | College: Actions taken to protect health; education continued remotely; costs persisted; faculty paid | Survives — unjust enrichment for tuition plausibly alleged; not duplicative of contract claim |
| Unjust enrichment (fees) — whether fee refund claim is available in equity | Beck: fees paid for services not provided should be refunded | College: Comprehensive Fee nonrefundable per published materials | Dismissed — claim covered by enforceable contractual term (no recovery in equity) |
| Conversion — whether students’ tuition/fees were a specific, identifiable fund | Beck: College converted students’ payments by not providing paid benefits | College: No specific, identifiable fund; amounts sought are undetermined pro rata shares | Dismissed — conversion requires a specific identifiable fund not alleged here |
| N.Y. GBL §§ 349 & 350 — whether marketing was materially misleading to reasonable consumers | Beck: Advertising of on‑campus product was deceptive when College switched online | College: No reasonable consumer would expect in‑person instruction to continue despite a deadly pandemic | Dismissed — marketing not materially misleading as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Papelino v. Albany Coll. of Pharmacy of Union Univ., 633 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2011) (implied educational contract forms when university accepts a student; bulletins and regulations can be part of the contract)
- Corsello v. Verizon New York, Inc., 18 N.Y.3d 777 (2012) (unjust enrichment is available only where defendant has received money it is not entitled to and equity demands restitution)
- Thys v. Fortis Securities LLC, 74 A.D.3d 546 (1st Dep't 2010) (conversion of money requires a specific, identifiable fund and obligation to treat it in a particular manner)
- Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Chemical Bank, 160 A.D.2d 113 (1st Dep't 1990) (conversion precedent addressing identifiable funds)
- Baldridge v. State, 293 A.D.2d 941 (3d Dep't 2002) (breach of contract against institutions requires pointing to guarantees of specified services)
- Vought v. Teachers Coll., Columbia Univ., 127 A.D.2d 654 (2d Dep't 1987) (bulletins, circulars, and regulations made available to students can become part of the implied contract)
- Orlander v. Staples, Inc., 802 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2015) (to state claim under N.Y. GBL §§ 349–350, plaintiff must allege consumer‑oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury)