{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"161704_2026_Jane_Doe_v_Cornell_University_Inc_et_al_AFFIDAVIT_OR_AFFIRM_3","alternateName":"161704_2026_Jane_Doe_v_Cornell_University_Inc_et_al_AFFIDAVIT_OR_AFFIRM_3.pdf","caption":"","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/211/raw","datePublished":"2026-10-10T17:17:45+00:00","description":"","encodingFormat":"application/pdf","identifier":"211","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/211/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/211/index.md"},"name":"161704_2026_Jane_Doe_v_Cornell_University_Inc_et_al_AFFIDAVIT_OR_AFFIRM_3","ocrStatus":"ready","ocrText":"--- Page 1 ---\nSUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEWYORK\nCOUNTYOFNEWYORK\nJANEDOE,\nIndex No.:\nPlaintiff,\n-against-\nATTORNEY'S\nAFFIRMATION IN\nSUPPORT\nCORNELLUNIVERSITY, INC.,\nCHI PHI CHAPTER\nHOUSEASSOCIATION,CHI PHI FRATERNITY, INC.,\nCHI PHI EDUCATIONALTRUST,ALPHABETAHOUSE\nCORPORATIONOFDELTADELTADELTA, DELTA,\nDELTADELTASORORITY,ZAREENENTERPRISE\nLLC d/b/a MOONIESBAR& NIGHTCLUB,\nMATTHEW\nINGALLS, JOHNATHANNEWELL,\nWINSTONLEE, GILLIO LOPES, DIEGOSARABIA,\nSCOTTNORRIS, SCOTTKRETZSCHMAR,\nJOHNDOE(FACULTY), JOHNDOE(ALUMNI),\nJOHNDOES(EXECUTIVE BOARD), and ORAZIOPETITO,\nDefendant.\nThomas P. Giuffra,\nEsq. affirms\nunder penalty\nof perjury\nas follows:\n1.\nI amthe attorney\nfor\nPlaintiff\nJANEDOEin this\naction.\n2.\nI ama partner\nwith\nthe law firm\nof Rheingold\nGiuffra\nRuffo\nPlotkin & Hellman,\nLLP, retained\nas attorneys\nfor\nPlaintiff\nin this\naction,\nand a member of the bar of this\nCourt.\n3.\nI amfully\nfamiliar\nwith\nthe above-captioned\nmatter\nand the proceedings\nhad herein\nby virtue\nof the\nfile\nmaintained\nin our office.\n4.\nI submit this\nAffirmation\nin support\nof Plaintiff's\nOrder to Show Cause to Proceed\nvia Pseudonym pursuant\nto\nCivil\nRights\nLaw 50-b and other\nsupporting\nauthority\nand case law.\nPlaintiff\nrespectfully\nrequests\nthat\nPlaintiff\nbe permitted\nto\nproceed\nanonymously\nusing\nthe\npseudonym in the above-captioned\nmatter\nand in\nall\npublicly\nfiled\ndocuments, as well\nas to enjoin\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2026 07:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 3\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2026\n1 of 8\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nthe Defendants and their\nagents from\ndisclosing\nPlaintiff's\nname and/or\nidentity\nto anyone other\nthan their\nattorneys.\n5.\nHowever,\nto be clear,\nthis motion\nis not solely\npremised on Civil\nRights Law 50-b,\nbut\nalso on commonlaw. Doe v. Doe, 189 A.D.3d 406 (1st Dept. 2020) (\"There\nis also\na separate\ncommon-law exception\nthat\nempowers a court\nto\n\"use\nits\ndiscretion\nin\nbalancing\n[the\nparty's]\nprivacy\ninterest\nagainst\nthe presumption\nin favor\nof open trials\nand against\nany potential\nprejudice\nto\n[the opposing party]\"\").\n6.\nPlaintiff\nJANEDOEis a victim\nof sexual\nassault\nand rape.\n7.\nPlaintiff\nJANEDOEseeks\nto proceed anonymously\nbecause she was sexually\nassaulted\nand\nraped\nby\nDefendants\nMATTHEWINGALLS,\nJOHNATHANNEWELL,\nWINSTONLEE,\nGILLIO\nLOPES, DIEGO SARABIA, SCOTTNORRIS,\nand SCOTT\nKRETZSCHMAR,while\nwithin\nthe Xi Chapter of Chi Phi\nFraternity's\nhouse located\non Cornell\nUniversity's\ncampus.\n8.\nPlaintiff's\ncomplaint\nseeks compensation\nfrom Defendants\nfor\nthe heinous\nsexual\nabuses she suffered,\nfor\ninfliction\nof emotional\ndistress,\nand other\ncauses of action\nenumerated in\nPlaintiff's\ncomplaint.\n9.\nPlaintiff\nseeks\nto\nshield\nher\nidentity\nfrom\nthe\nstigma\nassociated\nwith\nthe\nsexual\nabuse she suffered\nand the\ntraumas\nshe continues\nto\nsuffer.\nPlaintiff\nstrongly\nbelieves\nthat\nproceeding\nin this\nmatter\nhenceforth\nvia a pseudonym is in her best interests.\n10.\nAs a matter\nof law,\ncourts\nin NewYork have long recognized\nthat\nindividuals\nin a\nvariety\nof contexts,\nsuch as those\ninvolving\nsexual\nassault,\nsexual\nabuse, and sexual\nharassment,\nhave a strong\ninterest\nin keeping their\nidentity\nout of publicly\nfiled\ndocuments. In such cases,\ncourts\n2\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2026 07:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 3\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2026\n2 of 8\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nare\ninstructed\nto balance\nan individual's\nright\nto privacy\nagainst\nthe rights\nof the opposing party\nand the public\nat large.\n11.\nIndeed, somefactors\nthat\ncourts\nconsider when determining\nwhether a plaintiff\nmay\nmaintain\nan action\nunder pseudonym are:\n\"(1)\nwhether the\nlitigation\nwill\ninvolve\nmatters\nthat\nare\nhighly\nsensitive\nand of personal\nnature;\n(2) whether the identification\nwill\npose a risk\nof retaliatory\nharm to party\nseeking\nto proceed anonymously\nor even more critically,\nto innocent\nnon-parties;\n(3)\nwhether\nthe\nidentification\npresents\nother\nharms and the\nlikely\nseverity\nof those harms;\n(4)\nwhether a plaintiff\nis\nparticularly\nvulnerable\nto\npossible\nharms of disclosure;\n...\n(6)\nwhether\na\ndefendant\nwill\nbe prejudiced\nby allowing\na plaintiff\nto press claims\nanonymously;\n...\"\nSee: Sealed\nPlaintiff\nv. Sealed Defendant,\n537 F.3d 185 (2nd Cir.\n2008).\n12.\nApplying\nthese\nfactors,\nin no specific\norder,\nit\nis\nclear\nthat\nby the weight of the\nfactors,\nPlaintiff\nshould be permitted\nto proceed under pseudonym here:\n(1)\nPlaintiff\nis a victim\nof\ndrugging,\nsexual\nassault,\nand rape,\nwhich\nis of a highly\nsensitive\nand personal\nnature;\n(2)\nthe\nperpetrators\nsexually\npreyed on Plaintiff,\nof whomthey knew was in a vulnerable\nstate\nas she was\nincapacitated\nat\nthe time of the alleged\nrape,\nwhich\nis\nalleged\nto have caused Plaintiff\nsevere\nemotional\ndistress;\n(3)\nPlaintiff\nis not seeking\nto avoid\nmere embarrassment, but rather\nthe social\nstigmatization\nassociated\nwith having been sexually\nassaulted\nand raped,\nas it\nis well known that\nvictims\nof sexual\ncrimes\nare often\nnot believed\nand have their\nreputations\nput\ninto\nquestion,\nand\ntheir\nidentification\nwill\npose a serious\nrisk\nof retaliatory\nharm from\nsociety,\nemployers and family\nmembersof Plaintiff;\nand (4) Defendants\nwill\nnot be prejudiced\nnor will\nthey gain anything\nfrom\nPlaintiff's\npublic\nexposure,\nbecause Plaintiff\nshall\nprovide\nher\nidentity\nto Defendants herein\nand\nwill\nprovide\nfurther\nall\nother\nrelevant\nidentifying\ninformation\nto Defendants and their\nattorneys,\n3\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2026 07:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 3\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2026\n3 of 8\n\n--- Page 4 ---\nand thus,\nthey will\nbe able to investigate\nand defend against\nthe claims through\nthe standard means\nof discovery.\n13.\nFurthermore,\nin balancing\nthe granting\nof the relief\nthat\nPlaintiff\nseeks herein versus\nDefendants'\nright\nto Due Process,\nthis\nCourt need look\nno further\nthan\nthe\nrelatively\nrecent\ndecisions\nof Hon. Suzanne J. Adams, Hon. Dakota D. Ramseur, and Kathleen Waterman-Marshall,\nrespectively,\nholding\nthat\naffirmant's\nclients\nmay proceed anonymously\nunder pseudonym. See\nJane Doe v. Alan Benvenisty\net al, Index No. 952064/2023, Motion\nSeq. No. 001 (2023);\nJane Doe\nv. Marco Pacelli,\nIndex No. 952203/2023,\nMotion\nSeq. No. 003 (2023);\nJane Doe v. Andrew\nHansen, Index No. 156670/2025, Motion\nSeq. No. 001(2025).\n14.\nFurthermore,\nas articulated\nby Hon. George J. Silver,\nJ.S.C.:\n[T]he\nright\nof the public,\nand the press,\nto access judicial\nproceedings\nis not absolute\nor unfettered,\nand involves\njudicial\ndiscretion\n(Lerner,\n124 A.D.3d\nat 487,\nsupra).\nMoreover,\naccess may still\nbe restricted\nin keeping with constitutional\nrequirements\nwhile\nsensitive\ninformation\nis\nrestricted\nin keeping\nwith\n'the\nState's\nlegitimate\nconcern\nfor\nthe well-being'\nof an individual\n(Globe Newspapers Co. v.\nSuperior\nCt., 457 U.S.\n596, 606 [1982]).\nSee ARK61DOEv. Archdiocese of NewYork, 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6035, *4 (Sup.\nCt. 2019).\n15.\nIt\nalso\nbears noting\nthat\nallowing\nPlaintiff\nto proceed under pseudonym herein\nwill\nnot prejudice\nthe public's\ninterest\nin open judicial\nproceedings.\nPlaintiff\nhas not requested\nthat\nall\ncourt\nfilings\nbe sealed,\nnor that any measure be affected\nthat would conceal\nfrom the public\nall of\nthe facts\nunderlying\nthis\nlawsuit,\nother\nthan\ntheir\nidentity.\nAs such,\nPlaintiff's\nrequest\nto proceed\nanonymously\nstrikes\nthe appropriate\nbalance of preserving\nhis privacy\ninterests\nwhile allowing\nthe\npublic\nto know the\nnature\nof\nher\nComplaint,\naverments\nof which\nare\nverified\nin\nPlaintiff's\nComplaint\nas well\nas her annexed affirmation.\n16.\nJudge Kornreich\nlikewise\nexplained\nin Doe v. Szul Jewelry,\nInc.,\n2008 N.Y.\nSlip\nOp. 31394,\n13 (N.Y.\nSup.\nCt.\n2008)\nthat\nmerely\nasking\nfor\nanonymity\nbarely\nimpinges on the\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2026 07:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 3\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2026\n4 of 8\n\n--- Page 5 ---\npublic's\nright\nto know: \"courts\nhave recognized\nthat\na grant of anonymity\nimpacts\nfar\nless on the\npublic's\nright\nto open proceedings\nthan does the closing\nof a courtroom\nor the sealing\nof records\n...\nSee Doe v. Bellmore-Merrick\nCentral\nH.\nS. Dist.,\nsupra at 701 (right\nto proceed anonymously\nis\nnot\nequivalent\nto\nsealing\nrecords\nand does not\nprevent\npublic\nfrom\naccessing\nrecords)\n...\nDoe v. Stegall,\nid.\nat 185.\nPlaintiffs\nanonymity\nhere will\n\"will\nnot obstruct\nthe public's\nview of the\nissues\njoined\nor\nthe\ncourts\nperformance\nin\nresolving\nthem.\"\nDoes I-XXIII\nv. Advanced Textile\nCorp.,\nsupra at 1068-9.\n17.\nIn ARK61 v. DOE, Hon.\nSilver\nalso\nweighed\nin on the public's\nright\nto know in\ncases,\nlike\nthis\none, where the Defendant\nis not a governmental\nentity:\n...it\nis axiomatic\nthat\nplaintiff\nshould\nbe afforded\nthe protection\nof anonymity.\nTo\nbe\nsure,\nthe\ninstant\ncase\ninvolves\nalleged\nacts\nthat\nwill\nno doubt\ncenter\non\ninformation\nabout plaintiff\nof a sensitive\nand highly\npersonal\nnature.\nThe court\nrecognizes\nthat\nplaintiff,\nas the alleged\nvictim\nof sexual\nabuse, has undoubtedly\nsuffered\ngreat\nemotional\ndistress...\nSee ARK61 v. DOE, 2019 N.Y.\nMisc.\nLEXIS\nat *6 (emphasis added).\nThis position\nis\nsupported\nby precedent\nas it\nis well-established\nthat\n\"[t]he\nrisk\nof psychological\ninjury\nstemming\nfrom\nidentification\nis\na cognizable\nharm that\ncan serve\nas a legitimate\nbasis\nfor\nproceeding\nanonymously.\"\nDoe v. Solera\nCapital\nLLC, 18-cv-1769,\n2019 WL1437520, at *4 (S.D.N.Y.\nMar.\n31, 2019).\n18.\nThe instant\ncase involves\na sexual\nassault\nand rape,\nand will\nno doubt center\non\ninformation\nabout Plaintiff\nof a sensitive\nand highly\npersonal\nnature,\nPlaintiff\nhas voiced concern\nfor\nher privacy,\nher reputation\nand her livelihood\nprior\nto the\nstart\nof proceedings,\nhas kept\nher\nidentity\nconfidential\nthroughout\nand has complained\nof harassment,\nridicule\nand embarrassment.\n19.\nThe Defendants\nwill\nbe made readily\naware of Plaintiffs\nidentifying\ninformation\nupon the filing\nof this\naction\nand, upon agreement of Plaintiff,\nmay proceed with discovery\nusing\n5\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2026 07:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 3\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2026\n5 of 8\n\n--- Page 6 ---\nPlaintiff\ns legal\nname. The Defendant cannot\nseriously\nclaim\nprejudice.\nThe only purpose that\nthe\nrevelation\nof Plaintiff\ns namecould have would be to further\ntraumatize\nPlaintiff\nand perhaps deter\nher from\nlitigating\nthis\ncase.\nIn\nfact,\nthe\nrevelation\nof Plaintiffs\nidentity\nwould undermine\nthe\nlitigation\nby denying\na portion\nof the\nrelief\nultimately\nrequested\nin the\naction.\n20.\nFurthermore,\nPlaintiff\nhas an entirely\nseparate ground for\nrelief:\nshe has shown that\nshe\nis\nat\nrisk\nof\nfuture\nharm. This\nrisk\nis\nillustrated\nin both the\nallegations\nillustrated\nin\nthe\ncomplaint\nas well\nas Plaintiff's\npersonal\naffirmation\naccompanying\nthese papers.\n21.\nJudge Stroth\nalso\nrecently\nallowed\nfor\nplaintiff\nto proceed under pseudonym in a\nsexual assault\nmatter\nbrought under the GVMA,finding\nin Doe v. Combs, Index No. 160055/2024,\nSupreme Court, NewYork County\n(Stroth,\nJ. 2025) as follows:\nAn express\npurpose of the GMVAis\nto\nrevive\npreviously\ntime-\nbarred\nclaims\nfor\ncrimes\nof violence\nmotivated\nby gender.\n(New\nYork Administrative\nCode, Chapter 11 \u00a7 10-1105,\n2022). Revealing\nPlaintiffs\nidentity\nmayhave a chilling\neffect\non Plaintiff\nin litigating\nthe\ninstant\nmatter,\nand on\nother\nplaintiffs\nin\npursuing\nsimilar\nlitigation.\n(see e.g. John Doe No. 4 v. Rockefeller\nUniv.,\n2019 N.Y.\nSlip\nOp. 33725[U],\n*2,\n2019 WL6354255\n[Sup.\nCt.,\nN.Y.\nCount\nNov.\n22,\n2019]).\nSuch\nwould\ndirectly\ncontradict\nthe\nexpress\nlegislative\npurpose of the GMVA.(New York Administrative\nCode,\nChapter 11 \u00a7 10-1102,\n2022).\n... NewYork Courts\nconsistently\nhave\nheld\nthat\ntrial\ncourts\nare granted\ndiscretion\nin deciding\non whether\nto allow\na plaintiff\nto proceed anonymously,\nwhich\nthey\nroutinely\nexercise\nin\ngranting\nanonymity\nmotions\nin\nmatters\nwhere\nsexual\nassault\nis\nalleged.\n(See Twersky\nv.\nYeshiva\nUniv.,\n201 A.D.3d\n559,560,\n157 N.Y.S.3d\n379 [1st Dept.\n2022];\nDoe v MacFarland, 66\nMisc 3d 604 [Sup Ct 2019]).\n26.\nHere,\nnot\nonly\ndoes the\nmatter\nregard\ncrimes\nof a highly\nsensitive\nnature,\nbut\nPlaintiff\nhas also documented\nher fears,\nand has demonstrated why they\nare well-founded\nin her\nannexed affirmation\n(Plaintiff's\nAffirmation):\n6.\nThe risk\nof exposing myidentity\nis particularly\nacute here as\nI\nwas raped\nby\nmultiple\ndefendants\nwhile\nattending\nCornell\n6\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2026 07:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 3\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2026\n6 of 8\n\n--- Page 7 ---\nUniversity\nas a full-time\nundergraduate\nstudent.\nI have since stopped\nattending\nCornell\nUniversity\nbecause of the subject\nincident.\n7.\nWhat happened to mewasdevastating\nand humiliating.\nI fear\nthat\nsuch details\nof the\nsubject\nassaults\nbeing made public\nwould\nbring\nfurther\nshame to not only\nmyself,\nbut to myfamily\nas well.\n8.\nI fear\nthat being\nidentified\nby namein this\nlawsuit\nwill\nhinder\nmy social\nlife\nand career.\nExposing my identity\nwill\nnegatively\naffect\nmy relationships,\nas these\npeople\nwill\nview me differently\nafter\ndiscovering\nsuch personal\ninformation\nabout me through\na\npublic\nfiling.\nAttaching\nmy name to\nthis\nlawsuit\nmay permanently\ntarnish\nmyreputation,\none that\nI have worked so hard to rebuild.\n9.\nI\ntruly\nfear\nretribution\nand retaliation\nresulting\nfrom\nfiling\nthis\nlawsuit.\nDefendants have no regard\nfor myhealth\nor safety. My\nassailants\nthreatened\nmy\nsafety\nand\nwellbeing\non\nnumerous\noccasions,\nespecially\nin plying\nme with\ncopious amounts of drugs\nwithout\nany regard\nfor\nthe consequences.\n10.\nNot only amI seeking\nto proceed anonymously\nas \"JANE\nDOE\", but\nI am also\nkindly\nrequesting\na partial\nAttorneys'\nEyes\nOnly (AEO) designation\nas to my sensitive\npersonal\ninformation\nincluding\nmydate of birth,\nSSN, residential\naddress, phone number,\nand email\naddress.\n11.\nThe worry of my identity\nbeing\nrevealed\nin this\nlawsuit\nhas\ncaused meextreme anxiety,\ndepression,\nand many sleepless\nnights.\n27.\nPlaintiff\nis further\nrequesting\na partial\nAttorneys'\nEyes Only (AEO) designation\nas\nto\nPlaintiff's\nsensitive\npersonal\ninformation\nincluding\nher date of birth,\nSSN, residential\naddress,\nphone number, and email\naddress.\nPlaintiff\nis fearful\nthat\nif Defendants have this\ninformation,\nthen\nthey would be enabled\nto\ninflict\npotential\nharm upon her or her family.\n28.\nMoreover,\nif Plaintiff\nis not allowed to proceed under pseudonym, increased\nmedia\nattention\nmay lead to a chilling\neffect\nthat may inhibit\nPlaintiff\nand other\nalleged\nvictims\nof abuse\nfrom coming forward.\n29.\nAs such,\nin\nlight\nof the\ncourts\nin New York's\naccepted\npractice\nof permitting\nindividual\nvictims\nof sexual\noffenses\nto proceed anonymously,\nas well\nas the\nclear\npolicy\nof the\n7\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2026 07:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 3\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2026\n7 of 8\n\n--- Page 8 ---\nState\nof NewYork to protect\nthe confidentiality\nof that\ninformation,\nPlaintiff,\nby and through her\nattorneys,\nrespectfully\nrequests\nthat\nshe be allowed\nto use the pseudonym \"JANE DOE\"in\nthis\nmatter,\nas well\nas receive\na partial\nAttorneys'\nEyes Only (AEO) designation\nas to Plaintiff's\ndate\nof birth,\nSSN, residential\naddress,\nphone number, and email\naddress.\n29.\nPlaintiff\nhas not made a prior\nrequest\nfor\nthe\nrelief\nbeing sought herein.\nWHEREFORE,\nit\nis\nrespectfully\nrequested\nthat\nPlaintiff's\nOrder\nto Show Cause be\ngranted\nin\nits\nentirety,\ntogether\nwith such other\nrelief\nas this\ncourt deemsjust\nand proper.\nDated: NewYork, NewYork\nSeptember 14, 2026\nRHEINGOLDGIUFFRARUFFO\nPLOTKIN& HELLMANLLP\nAttorne\nfor\nPlaintiff\n.\nBy: Thomas P. Giuffra,\nEsq.\n551 Fifth\nAvenue, 29th\nNewYork, NY10176\nTel:\n(212)\n684-1880\ntgiuffra@rheingoldlaw.com\n8\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2026 07:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 3\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2026\n8 of 8","text":"--- Page 1 ---\nSUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFNEWYORK\nCOUNTYOFNEWYORK\nJANEDOE,\nIndex No.:\nPlaintiff,\n-against-\nATTORNEY'S\nAFFIRMATION IN\nSUPPORT\nCORNELLUNIVERSITY, INC.,\nCHI PHI CHAPTER\nHOUSEASSOCIATION,CHI PHI FRATERNITY, INC.,\nCHI PHI EDUCATIONALTRUST,ALPHABETAHOUSE\nCORPORATIONOFDELTADELTADELTA, DELTA,\nDELTADELTASORORITY,ZAREENENTERPRISE\nLLC d/b/a MOONIESBAR& NIGHTCLUB,\nMATTHEW\nINGALLS, JOHNATHANNEWELL,\nWINSTONLEE, GILLIO LOPES, DIEGOSARABIA,\nSCOTTNORRIS, SCOTTKRETZSCHMAR,\nJOHNDOE(FACULTY), JOHNDOE(ALUMNI),\nJOHNDOES(EXECUTIVE BOARD), and ORAZIOPETITO,\nDefendant.\nThomas P. Giuffra,\nEsq. affirms\nunder penalty\nof perjury\nas follows:\n1.\nI amthe attorney\nfor\nPlaintiff\nJANEDOEin this\naction.\n2.\nI ama partner\nwith\nthe law firm\nof Rheingold\nGiuffra\nRuffo\nPlotkin & Hellman,\nLLP, retained\nas attorneys\nfor\nPlaintiff\nin this\naction,\nand a member of the bar of this\nCourt.\n3.\nI amfully\nfamiliar\nwith\nthe above-captioned\nmatter\nand the proceedings\nhad herein\nby virtue\nof the\nfile\nmaintained\nin our office.\n4.\nI submit this\nAffirmation\nin support\nof Plaintiff's\nOrder to Show Cause to Proceed\nvia Pseudonym pursuant\nto\nCivil\nRights\nLaw 50-b and other\nsupporting\nauthority\nand case law.\nPlaintiff\nrespectfully\nrequests\nthat\nPlaintiff\nbe permitted\nto\nproceed\nanonymously\nusing\nthe\npseudonym in the above-captioned\nmatter\nand in\nall\npublicly\nfiled\ndocuments, as well\nas to enjoin\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2026 07:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 3\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2026\n1 of 8\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nthe Defendants and their\nagents from\ndisclosing\nPlaintiff's\nname and/or\nidentity\nto anyone other\nthan their\nattorneys.\n5.\nHowever,\nto be clear,\nthis motion\nis not solely\npremised on Civil\nRights Law 50-b,\nbut\nalso on commonlaw. Doe v. Doe, 189 A.D.3d 406 (1st Dept. 2020) (\"There\nis also\na separate\ncommon-law exception\nthat\nempowers a court\nto\n\"use\nits\ndiscretion\nin\nbalancing\n[the\nparty's]\nprivacy\ninterest\nagainst\nthe presumption\nin favor\nof open trials\nand against\nany potential\nprejudice\nto\n[the opposing party]\"\").\n6.\nPlaintiff\nJANEDOEis a victim\nof sexual\nassault\nand rape.\n7.\nPlaintiff\nJANEDOEseeks\nto proceed anonymously\nbecause she was sexually\nassaulted\nand\nraped\nby\nDefendants\nMATTHEWINGALLS,\nJOHNATHANNEWELL,\nWINSTONLEE,\nGILLIO\nLOPES, DIEGO SARABIA, SCOTTNORRIS,\nand SCOTT\nKRETZSCHMAR,while\nwithin\nthe Xi Chapter of Chi Phi\nFraternity's\nhouse located\non Cornell\nUniversity's\ncampus.\n8.\nPlaintiff's\ncomplaint\nseeks compensation\nfrom Defendants\nfor\nthe heinous\nsexual\nabuses she suffered,\nfor\ninfliction\nof emotional\ndistress,\nand other\ncauses of action\nenumerated in\nPlaintiff's\ncomplaint.\n9.\nPlaintiff\nseeks\nto\nshield\nher\nidentity\nfrom\nthe\nstigma\nassociated\nwith\nthe\nsexual\nabuse she suffered\nand the\ntraumas\nshe continues\nto\nsuffer.\nPlaintiff\nstrongly\nbelieves\nthat\nproceeding\nin this\nmatter\nhenceforth\nvia a pseudonym is in her best interests.\n10.\nAs a matter\nof law,\ncourts\nin NewYork have long recognized\nthat\nindividuals\nin a\nvariety\nof contexts,\nsuch as those\ninvolving\nsexual\nassault,\nsexual\nabuse, and sexual\nharassment,\nhave a strong\ninterest\nin keeping their\nidentity\nout of publicly\nfiled\ndocuments. In such cases,\ncourts\n2\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2026 07:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 3\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2026\n2 of 8\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nare\ninstructed\nto balance\nan individual's\nright\nto privacy\nagainst\nthe rights\nof the opposing party\nand the public\nat large.\n11.\nIndeed, somefactors\nthat\ncourts\nconsider when determining\nwhether a plaintiff\nmay\nmaintain\nan action\nunder pseudonym are:\n\"(1)\nwhether the\nlitigation\nwill\ninvolve\nmatters\nthat\nare\nhighly\nsensitive\nand of personal\nnature;\n(2) whether the identification\nwill\npose a risk\nof retaliatory\nharm to party\nseeking\nto proceed anonymously\nor even more critically,\nto innocent\nnon-parties;\n(3)\nwhether\nthe\nidentification\npresents\nother\nharms and the\nlikely\nseverity\nof those harms;\n(4)\nwhether a plaintiff\nis\nparticularly\nvulnerable\nto\npossible\nharms of disclosure;\n...\n(6)\nwhether\na\ndefendant\nwill\nbe prejudiced\nby allowing\na plaintiff\nto press claims\nanonymously;\n...\"\nSee: Sealed\nPlaintiff\nv. Sealed Defendant,\n537 F.3d 185 (2nd Cir.\n2008).\n12.\nApplying\nthese\nfactors,\nin no specific\norder,\nit\nis\nclear\nthat\nby the weight of the\nfactors,\nPlaintiff\nshould be permitted\nto proceed under pseudonym here:\n(1)\nPlaintiff\nis a victim\nof\ndrugging,\nsexual\nassault,\nand rape,\nwhich\nis of a highly\nsensitive\nand personal\nnature;\n(2)\nthe\nperpetrators\nsexually\npreyed on Plaintiff,\nof whomthey knew was in a vulnerable\nstate\nas she was\nincapacitated\nat\nthe time of the alleged\nrape,\nwhich\nis\nalleged\nto have caused Plaintiff\nsevere\nemotional\ndistress;\n(3)\nPlaintiff\nis not seeking\nto avoid\nmere embarrassment, but rather\nthe social\nstigmatization\nassociated\nwith having been sexually\nassaulted\nand raped,\nas it\nis well known that\nvictims\nof sexual\ncrimes\nare often\nnot believed\nand have their\nreputations\nput\ninto\nquestion,\nand\ntheir\nidentification\nwill\npose a serious\nrisk\nof retaliatory\nharm from\nsociety,\nemployers and family\nmembersof Plaintiff;\nand (4) Defendants\nwill\nnot be prejudiced\nnor will\nthey gain anything\nfrom\nPlaintiff's\npublic\nexposure,\nbecause Plaintiff\nshall\nprovide\nher\nidentity\nto Defendants herein\nand\nwill\nprovide\nfurther\nall\nother\nrelevant\nidentifying\ninformation\nto Defendants and their\nattorneys,\n3\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2026 07:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 3\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2026\n3 of 8\n\n--- Page 4 ---\nand thus,\nthey will\nbe able to investigate\nand defend against\nthe claims through\nthe standard means\nof discovery.\n13.\nFurthermore,\nin balancing\nthe granting\nof the relief\nthat\nPlaintiff\nseeks herein versus\nDefendants'\nright\nto Due Process,\nthis\nCourt need look\nno further\nthan\nthe\nrelatively\nrecent\ndecisions\nof Hon. Suzanne J. Adams, Hon. Dakota D. Ramseur, and Kathleen Waterman-Marshall,\nrespectively,\nholding\nthat\naffirmant's\nclients\nmay proceed anonymously\nunder pseudonym. See\nJane Doe v. Alan Benvenisty\net al, Index No. 952064/2023, Motion\nSeq. No. 001 (2023);\nJane Doe\nv. Marco Pacelli,\nIndex No. 952203/2023,\nMotion\nSeq. No. 003 (2023);\nJane Doe v. Andrew\nHansen, Index No. 156670/2025, Motion\nSeq. No. 001(2025).\n14.\nFurthermore,\nas articulated\nby Hon. George J. Silver,\nJ.S.C.:\n[T]he\nright\nof the public,\nand the press,\nto access judicial\nproceedings\nis not absolute\nor unfettered,\nand involves\njudicial\ndiscretion\n(Lerner,\n124 A.D.3d\nat 487,\nsupra).\nMoreover,\naccess may still\nbe restricted\nin keeping with constitutional\nrequirements\nwhile\nsensitive\ninformation\nis\nrestricted\nin keeping\nwith\n'the\nState's\nlegitimate\nconcern\nfor\nthe well-being'\nof an individual\n(Globe Newspapers Co. v.\nSuperior\nCt., 457 U.S.\n596, 606 [1982]).\nSee ARK61DOEv. Archdiocese of NewYork, 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6035, *4 (Sup.\nCt. 2019).\n15.\nIt\nalso\nbears noting\nthat\nallowing\nPlaintiff\nto proceed under pseudonym herein\nwill\nnot prejudice\nthe public's\ninterest\nin open judicial\nproceedings.\nPlaintiff\nhas not requested\nthat\nall\ncourt\nfilings\nbe sealed,\nnor that any measure be affected\nthat would conceal\nfrom the public\nall of\nthe facts\nunderlying\nthis\nlawsuit,\nother\nthan\ntheir\nidentity.\nAs such,\nPlaintiff's\nrequest\nto proceed\nanonymously\nstrikes\nthe appropriate\nbalance of preserving\nhis privacy\ninterests\nwhile allowing\nthe\npublic\nto know the\nnature\nof\nher\nComplaint,\naverments\nof which\nare\nverified\nin\nPlaintiff's\nComplaint\nas well\nas her annexed affirmation.\n16.\nJudge Kornreich\nlikewise\nexplained\nin Doe v. Szul Jewelry,\nInc.,\n2008 N.Y.\nSlip\nOp. 31394,\n13 (N.Y.\nSup.\nCt.\n2008)\nthat\nmerely\nasking\nfor\nanonymity\nbarely\nimpinges on the\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2026 07:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 3\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2026\n4 of 8\n\n--- Page 5 ---\npublic's\nright\nto know: \"courts\nhave recognized\nthat\na grant of anonymity\nimpacts\nfar\nless on the\npublic's\nright\nto open proceedings\nthan does the closing\nof a courtroom\nor the sealing\nof records\n...\nSee Doe v. Bellmore-Merrick\nCentral\nH.\nS. Dist.,\nsupra at 701 (right\nto proceed anonymously\nis\nnot\nequivalent\nto\nsealing\nrecords\nand does not\nprevent\npublic\nfrom\naccessing\nrecords)\n...\nDoe v. Stegall,\nid.\nat 185.\nPlaintiffs\nanonymity\nhere will\n\"will\nnot obstruct\nthe public's\nview of the\nissues\njoined\nor\nthe\ncourts\nperformance\nin\nresolving\nthem.\"\nDoes I-XXIII\nv. Advanced Textile\nCorp.,\nsupra at 1068-9.\n17.\nIn ARK61 v. DOE, Hon.\nSilver\nalso\nweighed\nin on the public's\nright\nto know in\ncases,\nlike\nthis\none, where the Defendant\nis not a governmental\nentity:\n...it\nis axiomatic\nthat\nplaintiff\nshould\nbe afforded\nthe protection\nof anonymity.\nTo\nbe\nsure,\nthe\ninstant\ncase\ninvolves\nalleged\nacts\nthat\nwill\nno doubt\ncenter\non\ninformation\nabout plaintiff\nof a sensitive\nand highly\npersonal\nnature.\nThe court\nrecognizes\nthat\nplaintiff,\nas the alleged\nvictim\nof sexual\nabuse, has undoubtedly\nsuffered\ngreat\nemotional\ndistress...\nSee ARK61 v. DOE, 2019 N.Y.\nMisc.\nLEXIS\nat *6 (emphasis added).\nThis position\nis\nsupported\nby precedent\nas it\nis well-established\nthat\n\"[t]he\nrisk\nof psychological\ninjury\nstemming\nfrom\nidentification\nis\na cognizable\nharm that\ncan serve\nas a legitimate\nbasis\nfor\nproceeding\nanonymously.\"\nDoe v. Solera\nCapital\nLLC, 18-cv-1769,\n2019 WL1437520, at *4 (S.D.N.Y.\nMar.\n31, 2019).\n18.\nThe instant\ncase involves\na sexual\nassault\nand rape,\nand will\nno doubt center\non\ninformation\nabout Plaintiff\nof a sensitive\nand highly\npersonal\nnature,\nPlaintiff\nhas voiced concern\nfor\nher privacy,\nher reputation\nand her livelihood\nprior\nto the\nstart\nof proceedings,\nhas kept\nher\nidentity\nconfidential\nthroughout\nand has complained\nof harassment,\nridicule\nand embarrassment.\n19.\nThe Defendants\nwill\nbe made readily\naware of Plaintiffs\nidentifying\ninformation\nupon the filing\nof this\naction\nand, upon agreement of Plaintiff,\nmay proceed with discovery\nusing\n5\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2026 07:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 3\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2026\n5 of 8\n\n--- Page 6 ---\nPlaintiff\ns legal\nname. The Defendant cannot\nseriously\nclaim\nprejudice.\nThe only purpose that\nthe\nrevelation\nof Plaintiff\ns namecould have would be to further\ntraumatize\nPlaintiff\nand perhaps deter\nher from\nlitigating\nthis\ncase.\nIn\nfact,\nthe\nrevelation\nof Plaintiffs\nidentity\nwould undermine\nthe\nlitigation\nby denying\na portion\nof the\nrelief\nultimately\nrequested\nin the\naction.\n20.\nFurthermore,\nPlaintiff\nhas an entirely\nseparate ground for\nrelief:\nshe has shown that\nshe\nis\nat\nrisk\nof\nfuture\nharm. This\nrisk\nis\nillustrated\nin both the\nallegations\nillustrated\nin\nthe\ncomplaint\nas well\nas Plaintiff's\npersonal\naffirmation\naccompanying\nthese papers.\n21.\nJudge Stroth\nalso\nrecently\nallowed\nfor\nplaintiff\nto proceed under pseudonym in a\nsexual assault\nmatter\nbrought under the GVMA,finding\nin Doe v. Combs, Index No. 160055/2024,\nSupreme Court, NewYork County\n(Stroth,\nJ. 2025) as follows:\nAn express\npurpose of the GMVAis\nto\nrevive\npreviously\ntime-\nbarred\nclaims\nfor\ncrimes\nof violence\nmotivated\nby gender.\n(New\nYork Administrative\nCode, Chapter 11 \u00a7 10-1105,\n2022). Revealing\nPlaintiffs\nidentity\nmayhave a chilling\neffect\non Plaintiff\nin litigating\nthe\ninstant\nmatter,\nand on\nother\nplaintiffs\nin\npursuing\nsimilar\nlitigation.\n(see e.g. John Doe No. 4 v. Rockefeller\nUniv.,\n2019 N.Y.\nSlip\nOp. 33725[U],\n*2,\n2019 WL6354255\n[Sup.\nCt.,\nN.Y.\nCount\nNov.\n22,\n2019]).\nSuch\nwould\ndirectly\ncontradict\nthe\nexpress\nlegislative\npurpose of the GMVA.(New York Administrative\nCode,\nChapter 11 \u00a7 10-1102,\n2022).\n... NewYork Courts\nconsistently\nhave\nheld\nthat\ntrial\ncourts\nare granted\ndiscretion\nin deciding\non whether\nto allow\na plaintiff\nto proceed anonymously,\nwhich\nthey\nroutinely\nexercise\nin\ngranting\nanonymity\nmotions\nin\nmatters\nwhere\nsexual\nassault\nis\nalleged.\n(See Twersky\nv.\nYeshiva\nUniv.,\n201 A.D.3d\n559,560,\n157 N.Y.S.3d\n379 [1st Dept.\n2022];\nDoe v MacFarland, 66\nMisc 3d 604 [Sup Ct 2019]).\n26.\nHere,\nnot\nonly\ndoes the\nmatter\nregard\ncrimes\nof a highly\nsensitive\nnature,\nbut\nPlaintiff\nhas also documented\nher fears,\nand has demonstrated why they\nare well-founded\nin her\nannexed affirmation\n(Plaintiff's\nAffirmation):\n6.\nThe risk\nof exposing myidentity\nis particularly\nacute here as\nI\nwas raped\nby\nmultiple\ndefendants\nwhile\nattending\nCornell\n6\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2026 07:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 3\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2026\n6 of 8\n\n--- Page 7 ---\nUniversity\nas a full-time\nundergraduate\nstudent.\nI have since stopped\nattending\nCornell\nUniversity\nbecause of the subject\nincident.\n7.\nWhat happened to mewasdevastating\nand humiliating.\nI fear\nthat\nsuch details\nof the\nsubject\nassaults\nbeing made public\nwould\nbring\nfurther\nshame to not only\nmyself,\nbut to myfamily\nas well.\n8.\nI fear\nthat being\nidentified\nby namein this\nlawsuit\nwill\nhinder\nmy social\nlife\nand career.\nExposing my identity\nwill\nnegatively\naffect\nmy relationships,\nas these\npeople\nwill\nview me differently\nafter\ndiscovering\nsuch personal\ninformation\nabout me through\na\npublic\nfiling.\nAttaching\nmy name to\nthis\nlawsuit\nmay permanently\ntarnish\nmyreputation,\none that\nI have worked so hard to rebuild.\n9.\nI\ntruly\nfear\nretribution\nand retaliation\nresulting\nfrom\nfiling\nthis\nlawsuit.\nDefendants have no regard\nfor myhealth\nor safety. My\nassailants\nthreatened\nmy\nsafety\nand\nwellbeing\non\nnumerous\noccasions,\nespecially\nin plying\nme with\ncopious amounts of drugs\nwithout\nany regard\nfor\nthe consequences.\n10.\nNot only amI seeking\nto proceed anonymously\nas \"JANE\nDOE\", but\nI am also\nkindly\nrequesting\na partial\nAttorneys'\nEyes\nOnly (AEO) designation\nas to my sensitive\npersonal\ninformation\nincluding\nmydate of birth,\nSSN, residential\naddress, phone number,\nand email\naddress.\n11.\nThe worry of my identity\nbeing\nrevealed\nin this\nlawsuit\nhas\ncaused meextreme anxiety,\ndepression,\nand many sleepless\nnights.\n27.\nPlaintiff\nis further\nrequesting\na partial\nAttorneys'\nEyes Only (AEO) designation\nas\nto\nPlaintiff's\nsensitive\npersonal\ninformation\nincluding\nher date of birth,\nSSN, residential\naddress,\nphone number, and email\naddress.\nPlaintiff\nis fearful\nthat\nif Defendants have this\ninformation,\nthen\nthey would be enabled\nto\ninflict\npotential\nharm upon her or her family.\n28.\nMoreover,\nif Plaintiff\nis not allowed to proceed under pseudonym, increased\nmedia\nattention\nmay lead to a chilling\neffect\nthat may inhibit\nPlaintiff\nand other\nalleged\nvictims\nof abuse\nfrom coming forward.\n29.\nAs such,\nin\nlight\nof the\ncourts\nin New York's\naccepted\npractice\nof permitting\nindividual\nvictims\nof sexual\noffenses\nto proceed anonymously,\nas well\nas the\nclear\npolicy\nof the\n7\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2026 07:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 3\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2026\n7 of 8\n\n--- Page 8 ---\nState\nof NewYork to protect\nthe confidentiality\nof that\ninformation,\nPlaintiff,\nby and through her\nattorneys,\nrespectfully\nrequests\nthat\nshe be allowed\nto use the pseudonym \"JANE DOE\"in\nthis\nmatter,\nas well\nas receive\na partial\nAttorneys'\nEyes Only (AEO) designation\nas to Plaintiff's\ndate\nof birth,\nSSN, residential\naddress,\nphone number, and email\naddress.\n29.\nPlaintiff\nhas not made a prior\nrequest\nfor\nthe\nrelief\nbeing sought herein.\nWHEREFORE,\nit\nis\nrespectfully\nrequested\nthat\nPlaintiff's\nOrder\nto Show Cause be\ngranted\nin\nits\nentirety,\ntogether\nwith such other\nrelief\nas this\ncourt deemsjust\nand proper.\nDated: NewYork, NewYork\nSeptember 14, 2026\nRHEINGOLDGIUFFRARUFFO\nPLOTKIN& HELLMANLLP\nAttorne\nfor\nPlaintiff\n.\nBy: Thomas P. Giuffra,\nEsq.\n551 Fifth\nAvenue, 29th\nNewYork, NY10176\nTel:\n(212)\n684-1880\ntgiuffra@rheingoldlaw.com\n8\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/16/2026 07:05 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 3\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/16/2026\n8 of 8","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/211/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/211"}