New York Case Law Review: When Anti-Vaxers Divorce & the Return of the Dumbest Argument Ever in a Contracts Dispute

Nifty little case: parents entered into a separation agreement in 2017 which, as modified in 2019, included a provision that “[s]o long as the [father] maintains a residence in [a certain school district,] the children shall continue to attend school within [that school district] unless both parties expressly agree in writing to change the schools of the children.”  But the mother refused to get the children vaccinated, and so they could no longer attend their school, and she home-schooled them.  The father sought an order compelling the mother to get the children vaccinated and enroll them in the public school.  In Matter of John U. v. Sara U, the Supreme Court, App. Div. (3rd Dept.) found that the family court erred in dismissing the petition.  The provision in question was ambiguous and the parties were encouraged to work out a quick solution.   

The mother had relied on a religious exemption from the vaccination requirement until the 2019 school year.  State law changed in June 2019 and eliminated the exemption.  Given recent SCOTUS decisions in Tandon v. Newsom and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, it seems likely that New York is going to have to revive its religious exemption, and the former couple’s darling little vectors of disease can magically transform the drudgery of ordinary school days into thrilling super-spreader events.

Bernard v. Citibank amuses me because I litigated a similar case when I was in practice. Our client had created a revolving credit facility for the CEO of a now-bankrupt corporation.  His loan was secured with now-worthless shares of the corporation.  When our client tried to recover, defendant claimed that he had never signed the agreement on which his notarized signature appeared.  But he had taken the money.  The judge called it the dumbest argument he’d ever heard. 

Well, here it is again.  In Bernard, Citibank loaned Bernard $1 million in 2007 secured by a mortgage on a Brooklyn property.  Plaintiff now contends that his signature does not appear on the recorded mortgage, and the mortgage is thus unenforceable.  Never mind that, Citibank responded, plaintiff had ratified the loan because his “own banking statements demonstrated that he had accepted and retained loan advances in the total sum of $996,648.85, which were deposited into his account pursuant to the loan agreement on June 27, 2007.   New York’s Supreme Court, App. Div. (2nd Dept.) found that plaintiff was equitably estopped to deny the validity of the mortgage and remitted the case to the Supreme Court for entry of judgment.

H/T The New York Contracts Law Twitter Feed