The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York recently ruled on the case of Elizabeth Tapinekis v. Pace University. The court affirmed the dismissal of Tapinekis's breach of contract claims against the university. This decision impacts students who may seek to hold educational institutions accountable for contractual obligations, particularly in light of unforeseen circumstances like the pandemic.
The ruling, issued on May 19, 2026, follows a legal battle that began when Tapinekis filed a complaint against Pace University, claiming that the institution failed to fulfill its contractual obligations. The case highlights the complexities surrounding contracts between students and universities, especially during emergencies.
Background
Elizabeth Tapinekis, the appellant in this case, is a former student at Pace University. She alleged that the university breached its contract with her by not providing the educational services promised in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Tapinekis claimed that the university’s actions during the pandemic were unjust and detrimental to her education.
Pace University, the respondent, argued that the claims made by Tapinekis were unfounded. The university contended that the contract included an “Emergency Closings” provision that protected it from liability in circumstances beyond its control, such as a pandemic. The case reached the Appellate Division after a lower court granted Pace University’s motion for summary judgment, effectively dismissing Tapinekis's claims.
The Ruling
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the “Emergency Closings” provision in the contract barred Tapinekis's breach of contract claim. The court noted that this provision allocated the risk of loss to students during unforeseen emergencies, which included the pandemic.
The court ruled that the provision constituted an enforceable force majeure clause that precluded Tapinekis's contract and quasi-contract claims.
The ruling referenced a similar case, Goldberg v. Pace University, which addressed the same contract provisions and legal arguments. The court stated, “The court acknowledged that it did not address or discuss Goldberg v Pace Univ., a case that involved the same defendant and addressed the same contract provisions and legal arguments involved in this action.” This acknowledgment was crucial, as it demonstrated the interconnectedness of legal precedents in contract law.
Impact
This ruling sets a significant precedent for students and educational institutions in New York. It clarifies that universities can include provisions in their contracts that limit their liability during emergencies. This may influence how future contracts are drafted and interpreted, particularly in relation to force majeure clauses.
The decision also highlights the importance of understanding the terms of contracts between students and universities. Students may need to be more vigilant in reviewing contract terms, especially those related to emergency situations, to understand their rights and the institution's responsibilities. The ruling could affect how students approach claims against universities in the future, particularly in cases involving unforeseen circumstances.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Tapinekis plans to appeal the decision. However, the ruling sets a clear legal standard that may be referenced in future cases involving similar contractual disputes between students and educational institutions.