## Facts

- Michael Joyner, a low-income factory worker with only a sixth-grade education and limited English proficiency, responded to the school’s advertisements promising computer-training careers with good salaries.
- A school representative interviewed Joyner, learned his true age and limited schooling, and administered an “aptitude” test that Joyner struggled to understand and complete without extra time.
- The school reported Joyner scored a “B+,” but did not produce the test materials to substantiate the score; internal notes inaccurately described Joyner as a high-school graduate.
- Relying on the reported score, the representative told Joyner he was “worth a $10,000 job” and assured him the school would place him in such employment after the course; Joyner stated his sole purpose was to obtain a job.
- Joyner signed an admission application that contained a printed disclaimer on the reverse stating it was not a guarantee of a job; Joyner testified he did not see or read the reverse side and it was not explained to him.
- Joyner completed about 360 hours of instruction (plus some supplemental work) but did not comprehend the subject matter.
- For years after completion, Joyner repeatedly sought placement assistance; the school prepared a résumé containing false information, including an incorrect birth year.
- Joyner attended roughly 50–60 job interviews, failed screening tests, and never obtained computer-related employment or the promised placement.

## Issues

1. Whether the school’s aptitude-score statements and job-placement assurances were actionable fraudulent misrepresentations rather than nonactionable sales talk or predictions.
2. Whether Joyner reasonably relied on the school’s representations despite the fine-print, reverse-side disclaimer in the application.
3. Whether the school’s conduct justified punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages.

## Decision

- The court found for Joyner after a bench trial and held the school committed common-law fraud.
- The court determined the school materially misrepresented Joyner’s aptitude and the school’s placement promises to induce enrollment and tuition payments.
- The court held the reverse-side disclaimer did not bar recovery because it was not fairly brought to Joyner’s attention and did not negate the specific oral assurances that induced enrollment.
- The court awarded compensatory damages for Joyner’s financial losses and punitive damages based on the egregious nature of the deceptive conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Fraud requires a material misrepresentation of fact, knowledge of falsity (or reckless disregard), intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and resulting damages.
- Representations framed as expert evaluation (e.g., an aptitude rating used to sell training) and specific placement assurances may be treated as statements of fact, not mere opinion or puffery, when made to induce enrollment.
- A boilerplate disclaimer in fine print may not defeat reliance where it is not reasonably communicated to the consumer and conflicts with specific, affirmative oral representations that drove the transaction.
- Punitive damages may be available in fraud actions where the conduct is grossly culpable and reflects deceptive practices affecting the public, not merely a private dispute.

## Conclusion

The court held a vocational school liable for fraud where it used an unsubstantiated aptitude assessment and specific placement assurances to induce an unsophisticated student to enroll and pay tuition; a hidden disclaimer did not negate reasonable reliance, and punitive damages were warranted to address the seriousness of the deceptive conduct.


Joyner v. Albert Merrill Sch., 97 Misc. 2d 568, 411 N.Y.S.2d 988 (Civ. Ct. N.Y.C. 1978)