From yesterday’s opinion in Becerra-Paez v. Syracuse Univ., written yesterday by Second Circuit Judge Beth Robinson, joined by Judges Dennis Jacobs and Debra Ann Livingston:
There is a split between how federal and state courts have applied New York contract law to claims for breach of contract regarding tuition in the context of universities’ COVID-related transitions to remote learning. In Rynasko v. New York University (2d Cir. 2023), we evaluated whether a plaintiff plausibly alleged an implied agreement for a generally in-person education and access to on-campus facilities and services. Two subsequent decisions from the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court—Croce v. St. Joseph’s College of New York (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2023) and McCudden v. Canisius College (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 2025)—required that a plaintiff allege a specific promise of an exclusively in-person education.
We recently determined that this split, which implicates significant state policy interests, warranted certification to the New York Court of Appeals [New York’s highest state court -EV]. Beck v. Manhattan College (2d Cir. 2025). The Court of Appeals accepted the question, but we withdrew the certification after the parties negotiated a resolution and sought to withdraw the appeal. Because we remain unable to confidently predict how New York’s highest court would apply New York contract law in this context, we CERTIFY a question to the New York Court of Appeals. We reserve decision on all claims pending resolution of the certified question….
The factual background:
Diego Becerra-Paez enrolled in Syracuse University’s on-campus undergraduate program for the Spring 2020 semester. Tuition for Spring 2020 was about $26,000. Students also had to pay mandatory fees, including student activity, co-curricular, and health and wellness fees.
In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Syracuse University (“the University”) transitioned to online-only instruction, canceled on-campus events, and ordered students to refrain from going on campus. Becerra-Paez alleges that students could no longer access campus fitness centers or libraries; they could visit health and wellness facilities, bookstores, and the grocery store only in a limited capacity. The University did not provide students with a refund of tuition or mandatory fees for the remote portion of the Spring 2020 semester.
Here’s the question the Second Circuit certified, though the New York court is free to reformulate it if it wishes:
Does a student who sues for partial refund of tuition payments on the basis that a university breached an implied-in-fact contract for in-person learning by transitioning to remote learning as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic state a claim by plausibly alleging that the university made an implied promise to provide generally in-person learning and access to on-campus facilities and services, or does a breach of contract claim only lie where the student plausibly alleges that the university made a specific promise to provide exclusively in-person learning?
