Opinion
DOCKET No.SC2018-23307
10-12-2018
Julia JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. MILFORD ACADEMY and William Chaplick, Defendant
Plaintiff by Julia Johnson, Pro Se Defendant by Harlem & Jervis, Alicia C. Rohan, Esq. appearing
Plaintiff by Julia Johnson, Pro Se
Defendant by Harlem & Jervis, Alicia C. Rohan, Esq. appearing
Michael J. Genute, J.
Background
Plaintiff filed a claim against defendants on June 7, 2018, in the amount of $5,000.00, alleging that she was entitled to a tuition refund after enrolling her son in Milford Academy beginning in August of 2017. The basis of her claim is that her son was the subject of several bullying incidents, that there was a lack of proper supervision, that her son was seriously injured, and that he withdrew from the program because he did not feel safe, and that the defendant could not assure the plaintiff that they had the ability to protect her son in the future. The plaintiff's request for a tuition refund was denied by the defendants.
The plaintiff, her son, Craig Lea, and Craig's uncle, Carl Lea, testified on the plaintiff's direct case. Craig's aunt, Shelley Lea, and the plaintiff testified for the plaintiff as rebuttal witnesses. The plaintiff introduced a picture of her son's face having obvious and fresh lacerations, a video that was captured on Snapchat, which was posted on social media by another player from the Academy, a grade report, letter from her son's counselor, and a group of tax return documents the plaintiff had procured from the internet and which defendant did not deny were filed on behalf of the Academy. With the exception of the video, all of the exhibits were received into evidence.
The defendants introduced 5 witnesses: Eli Fields, Coaches Lamar Stewart, Kenneth Tinney, Myles Davis, and defendant, William Chaplick. They also introduced one document, an "Application Agreement", which was received into evidence.
Testimony and Evidence
Plaintiff's Case
The crux of the plaintiff's case was made out by Craig. While the plaintiff testified about observations she made of Craig, along with communications she had with the staff at the Academy, Craig testified to his personal experiences that led him to leave the Academy. In this regard, Craig testified to three specific, personal situations, which resulted in a physical altercation.
In the first instance, which took place about two weeks after enrolling at the Academy on August 10, 2017, Craig explained that another player, within a group of 12-15 students who typically wreaked havoc in the evenings, had broken into his dorm room and dumped a large bucket of water on his bed. The player who dumped water on his bed went to the gym with the expectation that the two would fight. Craig followed the player to the gym, throwing a bucket of water at him, and the two fought. As his head was bleeding, Craig was done fighting, but the other student pursued him to the vicinity of their dorm rooms and struck Craig additional times in the head before the fight was broken up. No coaches were present during this altercation, and despite believing he needed stitches, Craig went to bed. The following day, Coach Chaplick observed the defendant's face and made arrangement to take Craig to the hospital after practice, which led to Craig receiving 18 stitches on his face. Coach Chaplick told the team that there would be no more fighting or everyone would get kicked out of the Academy.
In the second incident, which Craig testified took place about two weeks after the first, he explained that the wide receivers, him being one of them, were confused about weight training and missed a morning workout. As a punishment, the whole team had to run on the hill. According to Craig, a defensive tackle ran down the hill at full speed and hit Craig as Craig was talking to another teammate. While Craig was on the ground, the defensive tackle began swinging punches at him before another teammate pulled the player off of Craig. As a result of this incident, the right side of Craig's face was swollen. Craig testified that the coaches came down from the top of the hill when the altercation took place and told the players to stop.
In a third incident, Craig testified that his roommate asked him to pick up a western union payment from his roomate's father at Walmart. Craig explained that he could not do it immediately because he was out with some other teammates. In response, the roommate stated that "I would have done it for you; you'll have to fight me when I get back." Upon Craig's return to the campus, Craig testified that his roommate ran down the hall towards him and body slammed him to the floor. After several minutes, the altercation was eventually broken up by another teammate. Craig explained that this last incident took place before the Yale game towards the end of September and that Craig, along with other players, went home after that game.
Following this last incident, Craig was moved into the only dorm room on the first floor. He stayed there for one night and, feeling that his circumstances were not going to improve by being isolated from the other players, did not return after the Yale game.
Craig also spoke of a situation that was documented on Snapchat and which was recorded by the plaintiff. According to Craig — and based upon viewing the video in court on Craig's phone without objection by either party, which unfortunately could not be saved as an exhibit — an encounter took place in a dorm room where a group of students dumped a Gatorade sized bucket of water on another student's bed. The targeted student then dumped a bucket of water in the hallway in an act of retaliation, challenging others to clean it up. Following a melee in the dorm room, where the two particular students engaged by boxing and wrestling with each other, the brawl resumed in the gym, where the two students further engaged in hand to hand combat with a large group of players circled around the two who were fighting. Craig explained that such occurrences were the norm, rather than isolated incidents at the Academy before he withdrew.
Amongst these specific incidents addressed by Craig, he also testified to players shooting bb guns throughout the campus, explaining that they were comparable to the very hard shooting air-soft guns. Craig also stated that a group of 12-15 students regularly barged into rooms dumping water filled Gatorade buckets on players' beds before retreating to the gym for a fight between the offender and the targeted player — similar in fashion to his first confrontation, which led to his needing stitches. While Craig testified that Coach Stewart told the players that they would be in trouble if he found any more bb guns, Craig denied that there was ever any player-specific discipline for the incidents about which he testified.
On cross, Craig refused to acknowledge that he was bullied, instead stating that he "would use the word "chosen." Craig otherwise acknowledged having positive communications with Coach Tinney and Ms. Solomon (his guidance counselor), about these circumstances, and that the coaching staff offered the solution of moving his dorm room to the first floor.
Carl Lea (Craig's uncle), also testified, stating that Craig wanted to stay home after returning from the Yale game and Carl also recalled a conversation with one of the Academy coaches, who denied that Craig had any notable behavioral issues.
Defendants' Response
None of the Academy's witnesses contradicted any information shared by Craig, in terms of the confrontations he experienced or the events that were documented through Snapchat. If anything, the Academy's witnesses verified the types of behaviors that were described by Craig. In fact, Coach Chaplick explained that the students have to find a way to have some fun, as there is not much for them to do outside of the school, testifying that players will have wars between floors, such as using super soakers, raiding each other with buckets of water, and similar shenanigans, also confirming that fighting is not uncommon at the beginning, because "that is how they are." Though he refuted that Craig was still enrolled at the Academy when events documented on Snapchat took place, Eli Fields (student at the Academy) provided a very similar narration (as Craig did) of what took place.
Throughout the testimony provided by the Academy's witnesses, there were several of the following types of references towards the culture at the Academy: "boys will be boys"; there is "a lot of testosterone"; players like to "fool around" with each other; that's "how they have fun"; the problems that do arise typically take place when the coaches are asleep; they "can't see everything all the time"; "(they) can't deal with a problem until it happens." In fact, Coach Stewart commented that "manliness plays a role in relationships" at the Academy, and one might have too much pride to admit what they are feeling, as the players do not want to show their weaknesses. Coach Stewart even agreed that players have left the Academy over having manliness issues, noting that "they can't make it because of their peers." There was specific testimony from Coaches Stewart and Chaplick that the Academy loses about 5 students every year, but he explained that this typically took place due to players becoming homesick, because they break the rules of the Academy, or because they do not come properly prepared for the rigors of the program.
Interestingly, both Eli and Coach Stewart either denied that there was discipline or did not have any recollection of discipline resulting from any of the documented physical altercations at the Academy. Coaches Tinney and Chaplick, however, contradicted this testimony, explaining in notable detail how discipline resulted in each case where Craig was involved in physical altercations. Both coaches explained that the students involved in each involvement with Craig was either suspended for a game, kicked out of the Academy, and/or stripped of being a captain. Players who were dismissed from of the Academy resulted due to having had prior behavioral issues.
Coach Stewart and Chaplick also explained that the students engaged in boxing and wrestling from the Snapchat video either quit or were suspended and the student found shooting an Air-Soft gun was removed from the Academy, while all of the guns were confiscated.
While the coaches who testified for the Academy testified that Craig left because he was not performing as well as he had hoped, that he was essentially homesick, and that he was an instigator to some degree who took matters into his own hands, there were inconsistencies in how they described Craig's performance and experience at the Academy. Coach Davis commented that he was a hard-working, albeit sometimes tardy, kid; Coach Stewart acknowledging that being in the physical altercations made Craig feel uncomfortable; and Coach Tinney describing Craig as "one of the good kids on the team."
As for rules and a code of conduct, Coaches Tinney and Stewart testified to a belief that the students receive a handout of some sort, Coach Stewart believing that such rules would be found on the website. Without objection from either party, I looked up the website and found a one-page document of dormitory rules. See , Court Exhibit 1. There was no particular player "code of conduct" or manual for addressing interpersonal issues that could arise at the Academy.
Coach Tinney testified that there are punishments for breaking the rules that vary, depending on the severity of the violation. In this regard, he stated that students are punished for violating rules of the Academy, noting that they are given so much leeway before privileges are taken away from the students. A couple examples provided were that inappropriate behaviors might result in the power to the dormitories being shut off at 10:00 PM or to invoke a rule that nobody is to leave the building.
Coach Chaplick testified to a very regimented program, noting that there is a very small percentage of "kids" who break the rules. He further remarked that he is not going to send a kid home for doing stupid things; that he and the Academy do everything in their power to keep everybody in the program. In this regard, he commented that coaches always get there to break it up before things get out of hand and that they try to end the fights on good terms, instilling in the players that they are a team. According to Coach Chaplick, the fights stopped after Craig and another student left the program, observing more than once that you "can't take care of (the fighting and problems) until it happens." When asked what they do to ensure a safe environment, Coach Chaplick replied that nobody is in danger at any time, that most of the apparent conflict is horseplay, and that "boys will be boys."
When asked about the apparent conflict between Coach Tinney's testimony concerning the discipline handed out and Coach Stewart's testimony, who did not make any mention of discipline for those involved in the various transgressions that took place, Coach Chaplick responded that Coach Tinney had more hands on involvement with the players and was more aware of such decisions and consequences than Coach Stewart. He proceeded to reiterate the discipline and consequences for each player involved in fights and similar behaviors, as explained by Coach Tinney.
The coaches for the Academy also testified to their attempts to remedy the circumstances involving Craig. Other than Coach Tinney's and Coach Chaplick's testimony that other students involved were disciplined, there was testimony that Coach Tinney acted as a mentor or big brother to Craig and tried to steer him from having conflict with others. The coaches for the Academy also confirmed that Craig was moved to the first floor following the conflict he had with his roommate, which was to be a temporary move before moving him back with the wide receivers. Curiously, he roomed with the wide receivers at the time of his first altercation emanating from the bucket of water being dumped on his bed. Coach Tinney also explained that other players knew not to mess with someone on the first floor. Likewise, Coach Chaplick explained that other players have stayed on the first floor without consequence, noting that some people like to live alone.
Finally, Coach Chaplick explained the importance of the Academy's no refund policy, noting that it has a selection process that results in about 900 kids being turned away from the program each year. Moreover, the program budgets for a specific numbers of players, all of whom he explained have some sort of issue or shortcoming in their past to be seeking admission into the program, and that they cannot replace a player who leaves the program mid-year. Any refunds would therefore undermine the Academy's budget in any given year.
Ultimately, Coach Chaplick testified that the plaintiff wanted a guarantee that Craig would be in no more fights, which the Coach could not guarantee.
Plaintiff's Rebuttal Testimony:
Shelley Lea, Craig's aunt, testified about the meeting that took place prior to Craig leaving. As much of her testimony was inadmissible hearsay concerning what others at the meeting had said, I will focus on her testimony concerning Craig's history with sports. Shelley contradicted the notion that Craig would just give up because things were going well for him, noting that competition was nothing new for him and that he left the program due to other factors set forth in his testimony. She also testified to Craig calling her and other family members when he was in the altercation that led to the stitches, commenting that he was very disturbed by the confrontations he experienced.
Julia also testified on rebuttal, denying that any coach ever commented about Craig's alleged issues with being tardy or having an inappropriate attitude towards other players. She explained that if she had known about such things, they would have worked towards resolving those issues in advance of Craig deciding not to stay at the Academy. While she was fearful for her son, she allowed Craig to make the ultimate decision to withdraw from the Academy.
Analysis
Breach of Contract Claim
In small claims cases, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving a claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The court has the obligation to apply the facts to the relevant law, keeping in mind the statutory mandate of substantial justice ( UCCA § 1804 ).
The Plaintiff's case centers on issues of contract law. A contractual agreement is simply a manifestation of mutual assent, by two or more legally competent persons, to one another ( Restatement Second, Contracts § 3 ). To establish the existence of a contract, there must be an offer, an acceptance of the offer, consideration, mutual assent, and an intent to be bound (22 NYJur Contracts § 9). And "(i)n every contract for the performance of services, the party obligated to perform is required to do so in an objectively reasonable manner under the circumstances." § 16:10.Standard of performance, 28 NY Prac., Contract Law § 16:10; see also, Lino Del Zotto & Son Builders Inc. v. Colombe , 216 AD2d 778, 779 (1995), Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v. Photocircuits Corp. , 20 AD3d 173, 181 (2005) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
"Every contract implies good faith and fair dealing between the parties and the promise of defendant will be implied if not found in the express terms of the contract. M. O'Neil Supply Co. v. Petroleum Heat & Power Co. , 280 NY 50, 54—55 (1939) (internal quotations and citation omitted). "More succinctly expressed, the undertaking of each promisor in a contract must include any promises which a reasonable person in the position of the promisee would be justified in understanding were included." Rowe v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. , 46 NY2d 62, 69 (1978), (citing 5 Williston, Contracts [rev. ed., 1937], s 1293, p. 3682). "The covenant is breached when a party to a contract acts in a manner that, although not expressly forbidden by any contractual provision, would deprive the other party of the right to receive the benefits under their agreement." Stonebridge Capital, LLC v. Nomura Int'l PLC , 897 N.Y.S.2d 672 (Sup. Ct.), aff'd, 68 AD3d 546 (2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). In an educational setting, "(t)he essence of the implied contract is that an academic institution must act in good faith in its dealings with its students." Olsson v. Bd. of Higher Ed. , 49 NY2d 408, 414 (1980) ; see also , Nieswand v. Cornell Univ., 692 F. Supp. 1464, 1470—71 (N.D.NY 1988).
"In a breach of contract action, a plaintiff may recover general damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the breach, as well as consequential damages, which do not directly flow from the breach." Whitney Lane Holdings, LLC v. Don Realty, LLC , 159 AD3d 1163, 1166 (3 Dept. 2018) (internal quotations and citation omitted). "The party breaching the contract is liable for those risks foreseen or which should have been foreseen at the time the contract was made." Bi-Econ. Mkt., Inc. v. Harleysville Ins. Co. of New York , 10 NY3d 187, 192—93 (2008) (internal quotations, brackets, and citation omitted).
And while "small claims matters are not bound by the rules of evidence, a determination may not be based solely on hearsay." Rowe v. Silver & Gold Expressions , 107 AD3d 1090, 1091 (2013) (citation omitted). "Even at Small Claims, with its relaxed rules of procedure and evidence, the fundamental right to confront a witness by cross-examination must be preserved. Falker v. Chrysler Corp. , 119 Misc 2d 375, 378 (Civ. Ct. 1983) (citation omitted).
In this case, there was clearly a contract between the plaintiff and defendant, Milford Academy. While Chaplick is listed as a defendant, he is only being sued under a breach of contract theory. As he is not listed on the contract and there are no theories offered by the plaintiff for finding that he should be personally liable on the contract, itself, the case is dismissed against Chaplick, personally.
The "Application Agreement" with the Academy, which was signed by the plaintiff, includes the following language:
3. ... (T)he Students are enrolled for the entire academic year ... and ... the Academy makes no reduction or refund of tuition in the case of a Student's absence, dismissal or withdrawal.
While courts are generally reluctant to interfere with the internal affairs of a private school, the plaintiff in this case asks the Court to decide on an "external affair( ) between a school and an ex-student and then only insofar as it affects the return of his tuition payments." King v. Am. Acad. of Dramatic Arts , 102 Misc 2d 1111, 1114 (Civ. Ct. 1980). With that being the case, the issue becomes whether the Academy breached its contract with the plaintiff, giving the plaintiff a legitimate reason for withdrawing from the Academy. Based upon an exhaustive review of case law, this is an issue with sporadic precedent.
In Van Brink v. Lehman , 199 A.D. 784 (App. Div. 1922), the court found in favor of a private school seeking payment of tuition for the entirety of the school year where the defendant's daughter withdrew from the school because she "was not happy in her surrounding." 199 AD at 785.
And the court in Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus at Old Westbury, Inc. v. Corwin , 51 Misc 3d 44 (NY App. Term. 2016), found in favor of the private school where the defendant parents withdrew their daughter from the school following the June date, which committed the parents to the full year of tuition. Notably, the school offered a tuition refund plan at additional cost, which the parents rejected, and the daughter was enrolled at the school the previous year for kindergarten. Perhaps most notably, the parents had concern with the school meeting their daughter's special education needs in late autumn of the prior school year, yet kept her enrolled for the duration of that year prior to re-enrolling her the following school year before withdrawing and enrolling her in a different school. The defendants claim that the school did not meet their daughter's educational needs was rejected as it was an "inappropriate forum to test the efficacy of educational programs and pedagogical methods." 51 Misc 3d at 47 (NY App. Term. 2016). As the parents' other defenses were rejected, the court found in favor of the school, finding that the school was entitled to the full tuition for the year as liquidated damages. See, 51 Misc 3d at 48.
In Dubrow v. Briansky Saratoga Ballet Ctr., Inc., 68 Misc 2d 530 (Civ. Ct. 1971), the court found in favor of a plaintiff seeking refund of a tuition payment made for his daughter to attend a six-week summer session at the defendant ballet school. The school agreement provided that there would be no refunds once the program began, but the daughter became ill with mononucleosis and other complications three days into the program, prompting the plaintiff to withdraw her from the school. In support of its decision, the court noted "that where the primary purpose of a contract is to permit a specified person to perform in a certain manner, there is implied at law an intent by the parties to hold each other liable only if the health and life of that party is such as to permit continued performance, unless a contrary intent appears in the contract." 68 Misc 2d at 532 (citations omitted).
Arguably, the matter at bar is most analogous to King v. Am. Acad. of Dramatic Arts , where the court concluded that the student, who was enrolled in a private acting school, was dismissed from the program without just cause and entitled to reimbursement of his full year's tuition payment.
While the enrollment agreement allowed the school to dismiss students for any reason, which was under the section of "Tuition Reimbursement", the enrollment agreement also included a reimbursement upon withdrawal schedule in that section of the contract. Noting a lack of clarity concerning the school's right to retain a tuition payment where a student is dismissed, the court found that to the degree in which the enrollment agreement allowed the school "to dismiss a student without legal justification and (to) also retain his payment" ( 102 Misc 2d at 1113 ), was unconscionable. With this being the case, the court concluded that the school would be able to retain the tuition payment if the plaintiff was dismissed for just case. See , 102 Misc 2d at 1113.
In its analysis, the court in King also observed noted that, "(i)mplied in contracts between a school and its students is a condition that the student will not be guilty of such misconduct as would be subversive of the discipline of the college or school." 102 Misc 2d at 1113, citing Goldstein v. N.Y.U ., 76 App.Div. 80 at 83 (1 Dept. 1902) (internal quotations omitted). Ultimately, the court concluded that the student was dismissed without just cause and concluded that the student was entitled to a full refund of his tuition because prorating the tuition would be "requiring the plaintiff to purchase a small fraction of a course which plaintiff has not, and never would have, agreed to purchase." 102 Misc 2d at 1114.
Taking the rationale found in King and considering the dicta in other decisions, it is reasonable to find for the plaintiff, if the Academy breached its covenant to act in good faith towards the defendant's son, Craig, and the breach is the cause of Craig withdrawing from the Academy. While the defendant proffered testimony that Craig caused some of his own problems by being confrontational with the other players, there was no meaningful dispute concerning the events to which Craig testified.
I will take this moment to express my shock at some of the events that have taken place on the Academy's grounds while there are coaches on the premises. While the testimony was consistent that the bedroom raiding events complained of by Craig took place in the evening after the coaches were presumably asleep, it is astonishing that coaches did not awake to sounds of a fist and wrestling fight that took itself from a dorm room to the gymnasium, all taking place subsequent to water being dumped in the dorm room and down a hallway, the end of which being where one of the coaches was sleeping. Clearly, the "boys will be boys" mantra does nothing to alleviate these concerns. Similarly, it is hard to fathom that a coach (Stewart) and player (Eli) at the Academy would be unaware of any discipline resulting from these antics and behaviors. The testimony by Eli and Coach Stewart also creates credibility issues concerning the discipline that was actually doled out as a result of the various events discussed.
While Craig may have had issues with his teammates, his playing time, or his performance, it seems more than reasonable that any player would feel compelled to withdraw from a team where fights and dorm raids in the middle of the night were the norm, especially if that player received a beating that resulted in 18 stitches that were applied the next day AFTER practice. If he was having other misgivings about the Academy, these episodes clearly gave him a legitimate and reasonable basis for withdrawing from the Academy. Certainly, there was no testimony offering an admission from Craig proffering a reason for withdrawing from the Academy that would not entitled the plaintiff to a refund. And while Craig denied being bullied, his testimony suggested otherwise, as he described himself as being "chosen" or "targeted." Clearly, Craig felt bullied, though he rejected that terminology for fear of undermining his "manliness."
Ultimately, the Academy breached its implied covenant or contract to act in good faith when dealing with Craig, as well as with other students. While it offered him a remedy of a room on the first floor following the altercation he had with his roommate with an anticipated switch back to being placed with the wide receivers — where his problems began — the environment in which the Academy is operated would not have reasonably alleviated concerns that Craig had for his safety, well-being, or at the very least his peace of mind. While there was testimony that there was never a problem when students in the past were moved to the first floor by Coach Chaplick, the plan testified to by Coach Tinney was that the first-floor move was temporary. This creates some further credibility concerns as to the exact plan intended for Craig.
Even if he was to remain on the first floor, this would not have foreclosed the reasonable possibility that other students would have persecuted Craig for being unable to weather the confrontational setting, be it at practices, at other areas of the campus, or elsewhere, irrespective of prior successes in this regard. Moreover, the Academy has nothing in place to reasonably assure the players that they would be kept safe, except for the demands and structure of the program. There is nothing in the form of a "stay away" order or mandate between particular students when conflicts do arise, nor guidelines dealing with harassment, bullying, or other such behavior.
While students may typically survive the rigors and occasional chaos at the Academy, which no doubt provides students with exceptional opportunities, it does not justify the types of behaviors explained by Craig and verified by the defendant's witnesses. It is clearly not an environment for everyone, and the lack of obvious oversight during nighttime hours, along with the apparent lack of concern or knowledge of potential consequences would likely justify any player who felt targeted or "chosen" in the manner as Craig to withdraw from the Academy, even if that student may have prompted some antagonism. With the attention that has been brought through headlines and social media of inappropriate activities that have taken place in various venues of the sporting world, it is ever more important to have written and executed policies in place to create an adequate system of checks and balances to avoid the circumstances experienced by Craig and possibly others. Unfortunately, nothing of the sort was in place at the Academy. Being a school of manly football players with some form or another of shortcomings to require the additional year of school provided by the prep school does not alleviate this need and perhaps renders the need all the greater.
While the Academy "Application Agreement" provided for no refunds in the event of absence, dismissal, or withdrawal, such a provision is unconscionable in so far as it eliminates any requirement that the Academy act in good faith and fair dealing towards its students/players. See, Rowe v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. , 46 NY2d 62, 68 (1978) ; King , supra . The idea that an educational institution can run a program without a written code of conduct or discipline schedule, and with at least some lack of appropriate supervision, which results in players getting in frequent fights beyond the realm of the football field and then keep a student's tuition who becomes fearful for his safety culminates in unjust enrichment for the institution. See , Id . As the court in King found that the student was dismissed without just cause and therefore entitled to a tuition refund despite the "Tuition Reimbursement" language cited in the enrollment agreement, the student in the matter at bar had an objectively legitimate and reasonable basis for leaving the Academy. Based upon the testimony presented during the trial, Craig's withdrawal from the program was caused by the Academy's policies and shortcomings in failing to provide an environment where he could feel safe, which essentially provides for the same analysis and repercussions as one being dismissed without just case. See , King , supra .
For all of these reasons, I find that the plaintiff is entitled to at least a partial reimbursement of the tuition she paid for Craig. While the tuition was $20,000.00, the jurisdictional limit of this Court is $5,000.00. As Craig was at the Academy for approximately 6 weeks out of his year commitment, I find that the plaintiff is entitled to $5,000.00. See , King , 102 Misc 2d at 1114.
Decision
Plaintiff is awarded Judgment in the amount of $5000.00, plus interest from October 22, 2017, in the amount of $ __________, along with court costs. The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.