{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"ANSWER IN SPECIAL PROCEEDING (Motion #1)","alternateName":"NYSCEF-case-4c779433507a-000028.pdf","caption":"NYSCEF document #28 | Filed: 2026-07-17 | Filed by: PENCE, ADAM G Filed:  Received: | Docket status: Processed Confirmation Notice | Case: Jane Doe v. Cornell Univeristy (Tompkins County) | Source: NYSCEF","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/498/raw","datePublished":"2026-10-19T12:20:26+00:00","description":"NYSCEF document #28 | Filed: 2026-07-17 | Filed by: PENCE, ADAM G Filed:  Received: | Docket status: Processed Confirmation Notice | Case: Jane Doe v. Cornell Univeristy (Tompkins County) | Source: NYSCEF","encodingFormat":"application/pdf","identifier":"498","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/498/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/498/index.md"},"name":"ANSWER IN SPECIAL PROCEEDING (Motion #1)","ocrStatus":"ready","ocrText":"--- Page 1 ---\nSTATE OF NEW YORK \nSUPREME COURT: TOMPKINS COUNTY \n_________________________________________ \nIn the Matter of the Application of \n \n \n \n \n \n           \nJOHN DOE, \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPetitioner, \n \nFOR A JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78 \nAND SECTION 3001 OF THE CPLR \n \nIndex No. EF2026-0292 \n \n \n-AGAINST- \n \nCORNELL UNIVERSITY, \n \n \n \n \n \nRespondent. \n_________________________________________ \n \nRESPONDENT CORNELL UNIVERSITY\u2019S VERIFIED ANSWER \n \nRespondent Cornell University (hereinafter, \u201cCornell\u201d), as and for its Verified Answer \nto the Verified Petition (\u201cPetition\u201d), responds as follows: \nPreliminary Statement1 \n  \nPetitioner John Doe (\u201cDoe\u201d) improperly includes a series of unnumbered paragraphs in \nthis section of the Petition.  In response to this Preliminary Statement, Cornell admits that Doe \nwas found responsible for Attempting Sexual Exploitation and that Cornell has policies and \nprocedures governing the underlying student conduct proceeding, but denies the remaining \nallegations and characterizations in this Statement. \nParties and Jurisdiction \n1. \nAdmits that this is a special proceeding under Article 78 of the New York Civil \nPractice Law and Rules (\u201cCPLR\u201d), denies that Doe may seek a Declaratory Judgment under \n \n1 For clarity and to assist the Court\u2019s review, Cornell has included essentially the same headings and subheadings \nused in the Petition.  To the extent the Petition\u2019s headings or sub-headings were intended to include any allegations \nrelevant to this proceeding, Cornell expressly denies such allegations. \nCI2026-16153\nIndex # : EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n1 of 20\n\n--- Page 2 ---\n2 \nSection 3001 of the CPLR in a special proceeding, and, as to the remaining allegations contained \nin paragraph 1 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal conclusions, for which no response \nis required.  \n2. \nAdmits that the Hearing Panel found Doe responsible for Attempting Sexual \nExploitation, following a thorough and impartial proceeding conducted in accordance with \nCornell University Policy 6.4 and the Procedures for Resolution of Reports Against Students \nUnder Cornell University Policy 6.4 (the \u201cProcedures\u201d), denies having knowledge or information \nsufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Doe\u2019s alleged intentions in filing the Petition, and, on \nthat basis, denies that allegation, and denies the remainder of the allegations and \ncharacterizations contained in paragraph 2 of the Petition. \n3. \nAdmits that Doe is proceeding under a pseudonym pursuant to NYS Education \nLaw \u00a7 6448, denies having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the \nallegation that Doe currently resides in Ithaca, New York, and denies the remaining allegations \ncontained in paragraph 3 of the Petition.  \n4. \nAdmits that Cornell is a private university with its principal place of business in \nIthaca, New York, chartered under New York Education Law \u00a7 5701 et seq. \nStatement of Facts \nI. \nA Report of Sexual Assault at the Chi Phi Fraternity House \n5. \nAdmits so much of the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Petition that, in \n2024, the Chi Phi Fraternity (\u201cChi Phi\u201d) was a recognized student organization with the \nuniversity and was located in Ithaca, New York, but otherwise denies having knowledge or \ninformation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained \ntherein. \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n2 of 20\n\n--- Page 3 ---\n3 \n6. \nAdmits, upon information and belief, that Doe was a member of Chi Phi in the \npast, but otherwise denies having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the \ntruth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Petition. \n7. \nAdmits that Jane Roe accused various members of Chi Phi, including Doe, of \nconduct, occurring on or about the night of October 19, 2024 and/or the early morning of \nOctober 20, 2024, that constituted violations of Cornell University Policy 6.4, admits that \nalcohol and drugs reportedly played a role in this conduct, but otherwise denies the remaining \nallegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 7 of the Petition. \n8. \nAdmits that much of the alleged conduct that was the subject of the underlying \nPolicy 6.4 investigation and hearing took place in a bedroom of the fraternity house known as the \n\u201cAlumni room\u201d on the night of October 19, 2024 and/or the early morning of October 20, 2024, \nbut otherwise denies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 8 of \nthe Petition. \nII. \nCornell Brings Two Charges Against Doe \n9. \nAdmits that, on November 22, 2024, Cornell\u2019s Title IX Coordinator commenced a \nFormal Complaint under Policy 6.4 against multiple members of the Chi Phi fraternity, including \nDoe (R1042-47), respectfully refers the Court to the document for its contents, but otherwise \ndenies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 9 of the Petition.  \nAnswering further, the Formal Complaint was updated on January 14, 2025 and on March 12, \n2025.  R1048-59.2 \n10. \nAdmits that all versions of the Formal Complaint included allegations against Doe \nrelated to Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation (R1046, 1052, 1058), respectfully refers the \n \n2 The record for this proceeding has already been filed.  See NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 16-27.   \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n3 of 20\n\n--- Page 4 ---\n4 \nCourt to all versions of the Formal Complaint for their contents, but denies the remaining \nallegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 10 of the Petition. \n11. \nAdmits that all versions of the Formal Complaint included factual allegations \nagainst Doe related to Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation (R1046, 1052, 1058), respectfully \nrefers the Court to all versions of the Formal Complaint for their contents, but denies the \nremaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 11 of the Petition. \n12. \nAdmits that Section 26.2 of the Procedures states the \u201crespondent will be \npresumed \u2018not responsible\u2019 unless and until a Hearing Panel determines that person is \nresponsible,\u201d respectfully refers the Court to the Procedures for their contents, but denies the \nremaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 12 of the Petition.  \nAnswering further, the Procedures are attached as Exhibit 2 to the Affirmation of Lauren \nBranchini (\u201cBranchini Aff.\u201d). \nIII. \nCornell\u2019s Rules on Notice of Charges and Doe\u2019s Opportunity to be Heard \n13. \nAdmits that Section 9 of the Procedures states Cornell \u201cwill treat complainants \nand respondents equitably by offering Supportive Measures to each and by following the \ngrievance process set forth in the Procedures before the imposition of any disciplinary sanctions \nor other actions (that are not Supportive Measures or temporary suspension) against a \nrespondent,\u201d respectfully refers the Court to the Procedures for their contents, but denies the \nremaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 13 of the Petition. \n14. \nAdmits that Section 10 of the Procedures states the \u201cTitle IX Coordinator will \npromptly inform the respondent of any actions undertaken by the University that will directly \nimpact the respondent, including the filing of a Formal Complaint or the imposition of \nSupportive Measures that would directly impact the respondent, and provide an opportunity for \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n4 of 20\n\n--- Page 5 ---\n5 \nthe respondent to respond to such action(s),\u201d respectfully refers the Court to the Procedures for \ntheir contents, but denies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph \n14 of the Petition. \n15. \nAdmits that Section 18 of the Procedures outlines the contents of the notice to the \nparties upon the issuance of a Formal Complaint, respectfully refers the Court to the Procedures \nfor their contents, but denies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in \nparagraph 15 of the Petition.  \n16. \nAdmits that Section 24 of the Procedures outlines the process for an investigation \nof a Formal Complaint, respectfully refers the Court to the Procedures for their contents, but \ndenies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 16 of the Petition. \n17. \nAdmits that Section 26.4 of the Procedures states that, if a case is referred to a \nHearing Panel for a hearing, a Notice of Hearing will be sent to the parties, and outlines the \ncontents of the Notice of Hearing, respectfully refers the Court to the Procedures for their \ncontents, but denies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 17 of \nthe Petition. \nIV. \nCornell Holds a Hearing \n18. \nAdmits that a Policy 6.4 Hearing involving Doe took place and that the Hearing \nPanel was formed pursuant to Section 26.3 of the Procedures, respectfully refers the Court to the \nProcedures for their contents, but denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 18 of \nthe Petition. \n19. \nAdmits that the Policy 6.4 Hearing lasted 12 days and included testimony from \nmyriad witnesses and parties, including Jane Roe and Doe, but denies the remaining allegations \ncontained in paragraph 19 of the Petition. \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n5 of 20\n\n--- Page 6 ---\n6 \n20. \nAdmits that the Hearing Panel had access to an extensive investigative record (see \nR41-1583), but denies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 20 \nof the Petition. \nV. \nFactual Findings Made by Cornell \n21. \nAcknowledges that Doe is not challenging any factual findings (or related \nresponsibility findings) in this Article 78 Proceeding and further states there would be no basis to \ndo so. \n22. \nAdmits that the sections of the Hearing Panel Decision devoted to Doe \ndocumented findings with regard to him, respectfully refers the Court to the Hearing Panel \nDecision for its contents (R3535-41), but denies the remaining allegations contained in \nparagraph 22 of the Petition. \n23. \nAdmits that the sections of the Hearing Panel Decision devoted to Doe \ndocumented findings with regard to him, respectfully refers the Court to the Hearing Panel \nDecision for its contents (R3535-41), but denies the remaining allegations contained in \nparagraph 23 of the Petition. \nVI \nCornell Finds Doe Not Responsible for All the Charges Brought Against Him \n24. \nAdmits that the Hearing Panel found the evidentiary record insufficient to \ndemonstrate that Doe observed Roe nude or engaging in sexual activity without her knowledge \nand consent, and thus determined that Doe was not responsible for Sexual Exploitation under \nPolicy 6.4, and that the Hearing Panel found the evidentiary record insufficient to demonstrate \nthat Doe ingested ketamine off Roe\u2019s body, and thus determined that Doe was not responsible for \nSexual Assault under Policy 6.4, respectfully refers the Court to the Hearing Panel Decision for \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n6 of 20\n\n--- Page 7 ---\n7 \nits contents (R3535-41), but denies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in \nparagraph 24 of the Petition. \n25. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 25 of the \nPetition, respectfully refers the Court to the Hearing Panel Decision for its contents (R3535-41) \nand to its response in paragraph 24 above. \nVII. \nCornell Finds Doe Responsible for Attempting Sexual Exploitation  \n \n26. \nAdmits that the Hearing Panel unanimously determined that Doe was responsible \nfor violating Cornell\u2019s Policy 6.4 prohibition against attempting prohibited conduct, respectfully \nrefers the Court to the Hearing Panel Decision for its contents (R3535-41), but otherwise denies \nthe remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 26 of the Petition.  \nAnswering further, Cornell states that all versions of the Formal Complaint provided there would \nbe an investigation pursuant to the Procedures and explicitly stated that \u201c[t]he University may \nhold the Respondents accountable for violations of Policy 6.4 and other policies that are not \nreferenced in the Formal Complaint but are learned about from evidence, testimony, or \nadmissions during the investigation and adjudication process.\u201d  R1044, 1050, 1056.  Answering \nfurther, Cornell notes that \u201cattempting prohibited conduct\u201d under the Procedures involves the \nsame elements as the actual conduct: pursuant to Section 3.2 \u201c[a] person attempts to commit \nprohibited conduct if, with the intent to commit such conduct, that person engages in conduct \ndirectly tending toward completion of the prohibited conduct.\u201d  See also Cornell\u2019s Memorandum \nof Law in Opposition to the Petition (\u201cMemorandum of Law,\u201d pp. 16-17), which the university \nincorporates herein by reference.  Answering further, Cornell respectfully directs the Court\u2019s \nattention to the Hearing Panel Decision, which states: \nThe Panel therefore determined by a preponderance of the evidence that [Doe] understood \nthat a female was likely nude and/or engaged in sexual activity in the alumni room on \nOctober 20, 2024, and entered the room on that basis, intending to observe the same. It is \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n7 of 20\n\n--- Page 8 ---\n8 \nundisputed that [Roe] had no knowledge of the Snapchat messages occurring in the Actives \ngroup that night, had no previous relationship with [Doe], and did not invite him to the \nalumni room. Therefore, the Panel determined that [Doe] engaged in conduct directly \ntending towards completion of sexual exploitation (i.e., entering the alumni room) with the \nintent to commit sexual exploitation (i.e., to observe a person nude or engaged in sexual \nactivity without their knowledge and consent).  R3541. \nThe Hearing Panel made this unanimous determination following a thorough and impartial \nproceeding conducted in accordance with Cornell University Policy 6.4 and the Procedures.  In \nresponse to footnote 2, Cornell admits that the Hearing Decision includes the quoted language, \nrefers to the document for its contents (R3540), but otherwise denies the remaining allegations \nand characterizations contained therein. \n27. \nAdmits that the Hearing Panel unanimously determined that Doe was responsible \nfor violating Cornell\u2019s Policy 6.4 prohibition against attempting prohibited conduct, respectfully \nrefers the Court to the Hearing Panel Decision for its contents (R3535-41), but denies the \nremaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 27 of the Petition.   \nAnswering further, Cornell refers to its response in paragraph 26 above. \n28. \nAdmits that the Hearing Panel imposed sanctions against Doe, as outlined in the \nHearing Panel Decision, respectfully refers the Court to the Decision for its contents (R3535-41), \nbut denies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 28 of the \nPetition. \n29. \nAdmits that all versions of the Formal Complaint included allegations that Doe \nviolated Cornell\u2019s Policy 6.4 prohibition against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Assault, but \ndenies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 29 of the Petition.  \nAnswering further, Cornell states that all versions of the Formal Complaint provided there would \nbe an investigation pursuant to the Procedures and explicitly stated that \u201c[t]he University may \nhold the Respondents accountable for violations of Policy 6.4 and other policies that are not \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n8 of 20\n\n--- Page 9 ---\n9 \nreferenced in the Formal Complaint but are learned about from evidence, testimony, or \nadmissions during the investigation and adjudication process.\u201d  R1044, 1050, 1056.   \nVIII. \nAttempting Sexual Exploitation is a Distinct Charge Under Cornell\u2019s Policy \n30. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 30 of the \nPetition, and respectfully directs the Court\u2019s attention to Sections 3.2 and 3.6 of the Procedures \nfor the elements of Sexual Exploitation and Attempting to Commit Prohibited Conduct.  \nAnswering further, Cornell notes that \u201cattempting prohibited conduct\u201d under the Procedures \ninvolves the same elements as the actual conduct: pursuant to Section 3.2 \u201c[a] person attempts to \ncommit prohibited conduct if, with the intent to commit such conduct, that person engages in \nconduct directly tending toward completion of the prohibited conduct.\u201d   \n31. \nAdmits that, under Section 3.2 of the Procedures, \u201c[a] person attempts to commit \nprohibited conduct if, with the intent to commit such conduct, that person engages in conduct \ndirectly tending toward completion of the prohibited conduct,\u201d but denies the remaining \nallegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 31 of the Petition.  Answering further, \nCornell refers to its response in paragraph 30 above. \n32. \nAdmits that, under Section 3.6 of the Procedures, Sexual Exploitation is defined \nas \u201cintentionally engaging in\u201d any of the listed conduct, including \u201c[o]bserving another person \nwhen that person is nude or engaged in sexual activity without the knowledge and consent of the \nperson observed or allowing another to observe consensual sexual activity without the \nknowledge and consent of all parties involved,\u201d but denies the remaining allegations and \ncharacterizations contained in paragraph 32 of the Petition. \n33. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 33 of the \nPetition, and refers to its responses in paragraphs 29-32 above.  Answering further, as outlined in \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n9 of 20\n\n--- Page 10 ---\n10 \nCornell\u2019s accompanying Memorandum of Law, the record in this matter clearly demonstrates \nthat Doe\u2019s defenses centered around his intent when entering the \u201cAlumni\u201d room, which is \ndirectly relevant to the standard for attempting prohibited conduct under Section 3.2 of the \nProcedures.   \n34. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 34 of the \nPetition, and refers to its responses in paragraphs 29-33 above.  Answering further, as outlined in \nCornell\u2019s accompanying Memorandum of Law, the record in this matter clearly demonstrates \nthat Doe\u2019s defenses centered around his intent when entering the \u201cAlumni\u201d room, which is \ndirectly relevant to the standard for attempting prohibited conduct under Section 3.2 of the \nProcedures. \n35. \nAdmits that the Hearing Panel determined that Doe was responsible for violating \nCornell\u2019s Policy 6.4 prohibition against attempting prohibited conduct, respectfully refers the \nCourt to the Hearing Panel Decision for its contents (R3535-41), but denies the remaining \nallegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 35 of the Petition.   Answering further, \nCornell refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n36. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 36 of the \nPetition, and refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above.  Answering further, as \noutlined in Cornell\u2019s accompanying Memorandum of Law, the record in this matter clearly \ndemonstrates that Doe\u2019s defenses centered around his intent when entering the \u201cAlumni\u201d room, \nwhich is directly relevant to the standard for attempted prohibited conduct under Section 3.2 of \nthe Procedures. \n37. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 37 of the \nPetition, and refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above.  Answering further, Cornell \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n10 of 20\n\n--- Page 11 ---\n11 \nnotes that \u201cattempting prohibited conduct\u201d under the Procedures involves the same elements as \nthe actual conduct: pursuant to Section 3.2 \u201c[a] person attempts to commit prohibited conduct if, \nwith the intent to commit such conduct, that person engages in conduct directly tending toward \ncompletion of the prohibited conduct.\u201d   \n38. \nAdmits that Doe appealed the Hearing Panel\u2019s Decision, pursuant to the \nProcedures, and respectfully refers the Court to his appeal for its contents (R3602-19), but denies \nthe remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 38 of the Petition.  In \nresponse to footnote 3, Cornell admits upon information and belief that Savannah Bao was the \nDirector of eCornell Masters Programs at the Cornell University SC Johnson College of \nBusiness at all relevant times, but denies the remaining allegations contained therein. \nIX. \nDoe\u2019s Arguments Before Cornell\u2019s Appeal Panel \n39. \nAdmits that Doe appealed the Hearing Panel\u2019s Decision, pursuant to the \nProcedures, respectfully refers the Court to his appeal for its contents (R3602-19), but denies the \nremaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 39 of the Petition.  \nAnswering further, Cornell refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n40. \nAdmits that Doe appealed the Hearing Panel\u2019s Decision, pursuant to the \nProcedures, respectfully refers the Court to his appeal for its contents (R3602-19), but denies the \nremaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 40 of the Petition.  \nAnswering further, as outlined in Cornell\u2019s accompanying Memorandum of Law, Doe\u2019s \nconcerns regarding Bao were addressed promptly and contemporaneously, and the Hearing \nChair, who had full discretion under Section 26.10 of the Procedures, determined there was no \nbasis to grant the request from Doe\u2019s counsel for a new Hearing Panel and for the hearing to \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n11 of 20\n\n--- Page 12 ---\n12 \nrestart.  Answering further, Cornell refers to the Hearing Chair\u2019s Decision for its contents.  \nR3459-60. \n41. \nAdmits that Doe appealed the Hearing Panel\u2019s Decision, pursuant to the \nProcedures, respectfully refers the Court to his appeal for its contents (R3602-19) and to the \nHearing Chair\u2019s Decision for its contents (R3459-60), but denies the remaining allegations and \ncharacterizations contained in paragraph 41 of the Petition.  Answering further, Cornell refers to \nits response in paragraph 40 above.  In response to footnote 4, Cornell respectfully refers the \nCourt to Section 26.10.1 of the Procedures, which speaks for itself, and denies the remaining \nallegations and characterizations therein. \nX. \nThe Appeal Panel Affirms the Decision of the Hearing Panel \n42. \nAdmits the Appeal Panel unanimously affirmed the Hearing Panel Decision with \nregard to Doe\u2019s appeal. \n43. \nAdmits the Appeal Panel unanimously affirmed the Hearing Panel\u2019s Decision, \nwith regard to Doe\u2019s appeal, respectfully refers the Court to the Appeal Decision for its contents \n(R3629-30), but denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 43 of the Petition.  In \nresponse to footnote 5, Cornell denies the allegations and characterizations therein, and refers to \nits responses in paragraphs 26 and 29 above.  Answering further, Cornell states that all versions \nof the Formal Complaint provided there would be an investigation pursuant to the Procedures \nand explicitly stated that \u201c[t]he University may hold the Respondents accountable for violations \nof Policy 6.4 and other policies that are not referenced in the Formal Complaint but are learned \nabout from evidence, testimony, or admissions during the investigation and adjudication \nprocess.\u201d  R1044, 1050, 1056.   \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n12 of 20\n\n--- Page 13 ---\n13 \n44. \nAdmits the Appeal Panel unanimously affirmed the Hearing Panel\u2019s Decision, \nwith regard to Doe\u2019s appeal, respectfully refers the Court to the Appeal Decision for its contents \n(R3629-30), but denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 44 of the Petition.  \n45. \nAdmits the Appeal Decision was the final University action in terms of this \nproceeding and Doe, and, as to the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 45 of the \nPetition, such allegations contain legal conclusions, for which no response is required. \nPoints of Law \nThe Court\u2019s Role in Reviewing Disciplinary Matters at Private Schools \n46. \nRefers the Court to the cited legal authority for its contents and, as to the \nremaining allegations contained in paragraph 46 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law. \n47. \nRefers the Court to the cited legal authority for its contents and, as to the \nremaining allegations contained in paragraph 47 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law. \n48. \nRefers the Court to the cited legal authority for its contents and, as to the \nremaining allegations contained in paragraph 48 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law. \nThe Requirement to Give Students Notice of Violations  \n49. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 49 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n13 of 20\n\n--- Page 14 ---\n14 \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law and notes that Doe is not citing New York \ncase law for this asserted legal principle. \n50. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 50 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law and notes that Doe is not citing New York \ncase law for this asserted legal principle. \n51. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 51 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law, notes that Doe is not citing New York case \nlaw for this legal argument, and otherwise refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n52. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 52 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law, notes that Doe is not citing New York case \nlaw for this legal argument and otherwise refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n53. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 53 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law, notes that Doe is not citing New York case \nlaw for this legal argument and otherwise refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n14 of 20\n\n--- Page 15 ---\n15 \n54. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 54 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law, notes that Doe is not citing New York case \nlaw for this legal argument and otherwise refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n55. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 55 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law, notes that Doe is not citing New York case \nlaw for this legal argument and otherwise refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n56. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 56 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, denies the \nallegations and characterizations therein.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference \nits accompanying Memorandum of Law, notes that Doe is not citing New York case law for this \nlegal argument and otherwise refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n57. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 57 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, denies the \nallegations and characterizations therein.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference \nits accompanying Memorandum of Law, notes that Doe is not citing New York case law for this \nlegal argument and otherwise refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n15 of 20\n\n--- Page 16 ---\n16 \n58. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 58 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law, notes that Doe is not citing New York case \nlaw for this legal argument and otherwise refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \nCount I \n(Declaratory Judgment Vacating the Appeal Panel\u2019s Decision) \n \n59. \nRepeats and reiterates the above responses to the Petition as if those responses \nwere again set forth in full. \n60. \nParagraph 60 of the Petition states a legal conclusion that does not require a \nresponse; however, to the extent required, Cornell denies the allegations contained therein. \n61. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 61 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law. \n62. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 62 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, the proper means by which to challenge the underlying decision is \nto commence an Article 78 proceeding, which Doe has done. \n63. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 63 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, the proper means by which to challenge the underlying decision is \nto commence an Article 78 proceeding, which Doe has done. \n64. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 64 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law. \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n16 of 20\n\n--- Page 17 ---\n17 \n65. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 65 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law. \n66. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 66 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law. \n67. \n Denies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 67 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law. \n68. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 68 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law. \n69. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 69 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law and refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n70. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 70 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law and refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n71. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 71 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law and refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n17 of 20\n\n--- Page 18 ---\n18 \n72. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 72 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law and refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n73. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 73 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law and notes that the proper means by which to challenge the underlying decision is to \ncommence an Article 78 proceeding. \n74. \nParagraph 74 of the Petition is a request for relief that does not require a response. \nNonetheless, to the extent required, Cornell denies the allegations and characterizations \ncontained therein. Cornell also denies that Doe is entitled to any of the relief he requests in \nparagraph 74 of the Petition. \nCONCLUDING DENIAL OF ALLEGATIONS AND REQUESTED RELIEF \n75. \nDenies each and every allegation not otherwise expressly admitted or otherwise \ncontroverted herein, denies that Doe is entitled to any of the relief listed in the \u201cRequested \nRelief\u201d section of the Petition at page 16, and denies that Doe is entitled to any relief at all. \nAS AND FOR A FIRST OBJECTION IN POINT OF LAW \n76. \nAs demonstrated in Cornell\u2019s accompanying Memorandum of Law, the Verified \nPetition fails to state a claim for relief under Article 78 of the CPLR (or any other section of the \nCPLR) as there was no deviation from rules, published policies, or procedures.   \nAS AND FOR A SECOND OBJECTION IN POINT OF LAW \n77. \nAs demonstrated in Cornell\u2019s accompanying Memorandum of Law, documentary \nevidence conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims. \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n18 of 20\n\n--- Page 19 ---\n19 \nAS AND FOR A THIRD OBJECTION IN POINT OF LAW \n78. \nAs demonstrated in Cornell\u2019s accompanying Memorandum of Law, Cornell \nsubstantially complied with its own rules, published policies, and procedures in connection with \nthe Formal Complaint against Doe, the related investigation, the hearing, and the findings of the \nHearing Panel, which were affirmed by the Appeal Panel. \nAS AND FOR A FOURTH OBJECTION IN POINT OF LAW \n79. \nAs demonstrated in Cornell\u2019s accompanying Memorandum of Law, Doe\u2019s request \nfor Declaratory Judgment, pursuant to CPLR \u00a7 3001, is improper as a matter of law. \nAS AND FOR A FIFTH OBJECTION IN POINT OF LAW \n80. \nCornell has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with all applicable \nstatutes and regulations with regard to Doe. \nAS AND FOR A SIXTH OBJECTION IN POINT OF LAW \n81. \nCornell\u2019s actions were in all respects legal, proper, reasonable, and in conformity \nwith all applicable laws and regulations, and were neither arbitrary nor capricious. \n \nWHEREFORE, Cornell respectfully requests that the Petition be denied and dismissed \nin its entirety with prejudice, together with such other and further relief as may be just and \nproper. \nDated:  July 17, 2026  \n \n   \n    Respectfully submitted,  \n \n \n/s/ Adam G. Pence \n \n \nADAM G. PENCE \n \n \nTHOMAS HOEHNER \n \n \nRYAN T. NELSON \n \n \nCornell University, Office of General Counsel \n \n \n118 Sage Place \n \n \nIthaca, NY  14850 \n \n \n(607) 255-5124 \n \n \n \nAttorneys for Respondent Cornell University \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n19 of 20\n\n--- Page 20 ---\nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n20 of 20","text":"--- Page 1 ---\nSTATE OF NEW YORK \nSUPREME COURT: TOMPKINS COUNTY \n_________________________________________ \nIn the Matter of the Application of \n \n \n \n \n \n           \nJOHN DOE, \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPetitioner, \n \nFOR A JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78 \nAND SECTION 3001 OF THE CPLR \n \nIndex No. EF2026-0292 \n \n \n-AGAINST- \n \nCORNELL UNIVERSITY, \n \n \n \n \n \nRespondent. \n_________________________________________ \n \nRESPONDENT CORNELL UNIVERSITY\u2019S VERIFIED ANSWER \n \nRespondent Cornell University (hereinafter, \u201cCornell\u201d), as and for its Verified Answer \nto the Verified Petition (\u201cPetition\u201d), responds as follows: \nPreliminary Statement1 \n  \nPetitioner John Doe (\u201cDoe\u201d) improperly includes a series of unnumbered paragraphs in \nthis section of the Petition.  In response to this Preliminary Statement, Cornell admits that Doe \nwas found responsible for Attempting Sexual Exploitation and that Cornell has policies and \nprocedures governing the underlying student conduct proceeding, but denies the remaining \nallegations and characterizations in this Statement. \nParties and Jurisdiction \n1. \nAdmits that this is a special proceeding under Article 78 of the New York Civil \nPractice Law and Rules (\u201cCPLR\u201d), denies that Doe may seek a Declaratory Judgment under \n \n1 For clarity and to assist the Court\u2019s review, Cornell has included essentially the same headings and subheadings \nused in the Petition.  To the extent the Petition\u2019s headings or sub-headings were intended to include any allegations \nrelevant to this proceeding, Cornell expressly denies such allegations. \nCI2026-16153\nIndex # : EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n1 of 20\n\n--- Page 2 ---\n2 \nSection 3001 of the CPLR in a special proceeding, and, as to the remaining allegations contained \nin paragraph 1 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal conclusions, for which no response \nis required.  \n2. \nAdmits that the Hearing Panel found Doe responsible for Attempting Sexual \nExploitation, following a thorough and impartial proceeding conducted in accordance with \nCornell University Policy 6.4 and the Procedures for Resolution of Reports Against Students \nUnder Cornell University Policy 6.4 (the \u201cProcedures\u201d), denies having knowledge or information \nsufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Doe\u2019s alleged intentions in filing the Petition, and, on \nthat basis, denies that allegation, and denies the remainder of the allegations and \ncharacterizations contained in paragraph 2 of the Petition. \n3. \nAdmits that Doe is proceeding under a pseudonym pursuant to NYS Education \nLaw \u00a7 6448, denies having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the \nallegation that Doe currently resides in Ithaca, New York, and denies the remaining allegations \ncontained in paragraph 3 of the Petition.  \n4. \nAdmits that Cornell is a private university with its principal place of business in \nIthaca, New York, chartered under New York Education Law \u00a7 5701 et seq. \nStatement of Facts \nI. \nA Report of Sexual Assault at the Chi Phi Fraternity House \n5. \nAdmits so much of the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Petition that, in \n2024, the Chi Phi Fraternity (\u201cChi Phi\u201d) was a recognized student organization with the \nuniversity and was located in Ithaca, New York, but otherwise denies having knowledge or \ninformation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained \ntherein. \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n2 of 20\n\n--- Page 3 ---\n3 \n6. \nAdmits, upon information and belief, that Doe was a member of Chi Phi in the \npast, but otherwise denies having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the \ntruth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Petition. \n7. \nAdmits that Jane Roe accused various members of Chi Phi, including Doe, of \nconduct, occurring on or about the night of October 19, 2024 and/or the early morning of \nOctober 20, 2024, that constituted violations of Cornell University Policy 6.4, admits that \nalcohol and drugs reportedly played a role in this conduct, but otherwise denies the remaining \nallegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 7 of the Petition. \n8. \nAdmits that much of the alleged conduct that was the subject of the underlying \nPolicy 6.4 investigation and hearing took place in a bedroom of the fraternity house known as the \n\u201cAlumni room\u201d on the night of October 19, 2024 and/or the early morning of October 20, 2024, \nbut otherwise denies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 8 of \nthe Petition. \nII. \nCornell Brings Two Charges Against Doe \n9. \nAdmits that, on November 22, 2024, Cornell\u2019s Title IX Coordinator commenced a \nFormal Complaint under Policy 6.4 against multiple members of the Chi Phi fraternity, including \nDoe (R1042-47), respectfully refers the Court to the document for its contents, but otherwise \ndenies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 9 of the Petition.  \nAnswering further, the Formal Complaint was updated on January 14, 2025 and on March 12, \n2025.  R1048-59.2 \n10. \nAdmits that all versions of the Formal Complaint included allegations against Doe \nrelated to Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation (R1046, 1052, 1058), respectfully refers the \n \n2 The record for this proceeding has already been filed.  See NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 16-27.   \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n3 of 20\n\n--- Page 4 ---\n4 \nCourt to all versions of the Formal Complaint for their contents, but denies the remaining \nallegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 10 of the Petition. \n11. \nAdmits that all versions of the Formal Complaint included factual allegations \nagainst Doe related to Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation (R1046, 1052, 1058), respectfully \nrefers the Court to all versions of the Formal Complaint for their contents, but denies the \nremaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 11 of the Petition. \n12. \nAdmits that Section 26.2 of the Procedures states the \u201crespondent will be \npresumed \u2018not responsible\u2019 unless and until a Hearing Panel determines that person is \nresponsible,\u201d respectfully refers the Court to the Procedures for their contents, but denies the \nremaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 12 of the Petition.  \nAnswering further, the Procedures are attached as Exhibit 2 to the Affirmation of Lauren \nBranchini (\u201cBranchini Aff.\u201d). \nIII. \nCornell\u2019s Rules on Notice of Charges and Doe\u2019s Opportunity to be Heard \n13. \nAdmits that Section 9 of the Procedures states Cornell \u201cwill treat complainants \nand respondents equitably by offering Supportive Measures to each and by following the \ngrievance process set forth in the Procedures before the imposition of any disciplinary sanctions \nor other actions (that are not Supportive Measures or temporary suspension) against a \nrespondent,\u201d respectfully refers the Court to the Procedures for their contents, but denies the \nremaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 13 of the Petition. \n14. \nAdmits that Section 10 of the Procedures states the \u201cTitle IX Coordinator will \npromptly inform the respondent of any actions undertaken by the University that will directly \nimpact the respondent, including the filing of a Formal Complaint or the imposition of \nSupportive Measures that would directly impact the respondent, and provide an opportunity for \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n4 of 20\n\n--- Page 5 ---\n5 \nthe respondent to respond to such action(s),\u201d respectfully refers the Court to the Procedures for \ntheir contents, but denies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph \n14 of the Petition. \n15. \nAdmits that Section 18 of the Procedures outlines the contents of the notice to the \nparties upon the issuance of a Formal Complaint, respectfully refers the Court to the Procedures \nfor their contents, but denies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in \nparagraph 15 of the Petition.  \n16. \nAdmits that Section 24 of the Procedures outlines the process for an investigation \nof a Formal Complaint, respectfully refers the Court to the Procedures for their contents, but \ndenies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 16 of the Petition. \n17. \nAdmits that Section 26.4 of the Procedures states that, if a case is referred to a \nHearing Panel for a hearing, a Notice of Hearing will be sent to the parties, and outlines the \ncontents of the Notice of Hearing, respectfully refers the Court to the Procedures for their \ncontents, but denies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 17 of \nthe Petition. \nIV. \nCornell Holds a Hearing \n18. \nAdmits that a Policy 6.4 Hearing involving Doe took place and that the Hearing \nPanel was formed pursuant to Section 26.3 of the Procedures, respectfully refers the Court to the \nProcedures for their contents, but denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 18 of \nthe Petition. \n19. \nAdmits that the Policy 6.4 Hearing lasted 12 days and included testimony from \nmyriad witnesses and parties, including Jane Roe and Doe, but denies the remaining allegations \ncontained in paragraph 19 of the Petition. \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n5 of 20\n\n--- Page 6 ---\n6 \n20. \nAdmits that the Hearing Panel had access to an extensive investigative record (see \nR41-1583), but denies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 20 \nof the Petition. \nV. \nFactual Findings Made by Cornell \n21. \nAcknowledges that Doe is not challenging any factual findings (or related \nresponsibility findings) in this Article 78 Proceeding and further states there would be no basis to \ndo so. \n22. \nAdmits that the sections of the Hearing Panel Decision devoted to Doe \ndocumented findings with regard to him, respectfully refers the Court to the Hearing Panel \nDecision for its contents (R3535-41), but denies the remaining allegations contained in \nparagraph 22 of the Petition. \n23. \nAdmits that the sections of the Hearing Panel Decision devoted to Doe \ndocumented findings with regard to him, respectfully refers the Court to the Hearing Panel \nDecision for its contents (R3535-41), but denies the remaining allegations contained in \nparagraph 23 of the Petition. \nVI \nCornell Finds Doe Not Responsible for All the Charges Brought Against Him \n24. \nAdmits that the Hearing Panel found the evidentiary record insufficient to \ndemonstrate that Doe observed Roe nude or engaging in sexual activity without her knowledge \nand consent, and thus determined that Doe was not responsible for Sexual Exploitation under \nPolicy 6.4, and that the Hearing Panel found the evidentiary record insufficient to demonstrate \nthat Doe ingested ketamine off Roe\u2019s body, and thus determined that Doe was not responsible for \nSexual Assault under Policy 6.4, respectfully refers the Court to the Hearing Panel Decision for \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n6 of 20\n\n--- Page 7 ---\n7 \nits contents (R3535-41), but denies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in \nparagraph 24 of the Petition. \n25. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 25 of the \nPetition, respectfully refers the Court to the Hearing Panel Decision for its contents (R3535-41) \nand to its response in paragraph 24 above. \nVII. \nCornell Finds Doe Responsible for Attempting Sexual Exploitation  \n \n26. \nAdmits that the Hearing Panel unanimously determined that Doe was responsible \nfor violating Cornell\u2019s Policy 6.4 prohibition against attempting prohibited conduct, respectfully \nrefers the Court to the Hearing Panel Decision for its contents (R3535-41), but otherwise denies \nthe remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 26 of the Petition.  \nAnswering further, Cornell states that all versions of the Formal Complaint provided there would \nbe an investigation pursuant to the Procedures and explicitly stated that \u201c[t]he University may \nhold the Respondents accountable for violations of Policy 6.4 and other policies that are not \nreferenced in the Formal Complaint but are learned about from evidence, testimony, or \nadmissions during the investigation and adjudication process.\u201d  R1044, 1050, 1056.  Answering \nfurther, Cornell notes that \u201cattempting prohibited conduct\u201d under the Procedures involves the \nsame elements as the actual conduct: pursuant to Section 3.2 \u201c[a] person attempts to commit \nprohibited conduct if, with the intent to commit such conduct, that person engages in conduct \ndirectly tending toward completion of the prohibited conduct.\u201d  See also Cornell\u2019s Memorandum \nof Law in Opposition to the Petition (\u201cMemorandum of Law,\u201d pp. 16-17), which the university \nincorporates herein by reference.  Answering further, Cornell respectfully directs the Court\u2019s \nattention to the Hearing Panel Decision, which states: \nThe Panel therefore determined by a preponderance of the evidence that [Doe] understood \nthat a female was likely nude and/or engaged in sexual activity in the alumni room on \nOctober 20, 2024, and entered the room on that basis, intending to observe the same. It is \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n7 of 20\n\n--- Page 8 ---\n8 \nundisputed that [Roe] had no knowledge of the Snapchat messages occurring in the Actives \ngroup that night, had no previous relationship with [Doe], and did not invite him to the \nalumni room. Therefore, the Panel determined that [Doe] engaged in conduct directly \ntending towards completion of sexual exploitation (i.e., entering the alumni room) with the \nintent to commit sexual exploitation (i.e., to observe a person nude or engaged in sexual \nactivity without their knowledge and consent).  R3541. \nThe Hearing Panel made this unanimous determination following a thorough and impartial \nproceeding conducted in accordance with Cornell University Policy 6.4 and the Procedures.  In \nresponse to footnote 2, Cornell admits that the Hearing Decision includes the quoted language, \nrefers to the document for its contents (R3540), but otherwise denies the remaining allegations \nand characterizations contained therein. \n27. \nAdmits that the Hearing Panel unanimously determined that Doe was responsible \nfor violating Cornell\u2019s Policy 6.4 prohibition against attempting prohibited conduct, respectfully \nrefers the Court to the Hearing Panel Decision for its contents (R3535-41), but denies the \nremaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 27 of the Petition.   \nAnswering further, Cornell refers to its response in paragraph 26 above. \n28. \nAdmits that the Hearing Panel imposed sanctions against Doe, as outlined in the \nHearing Panel Decision, respectfully refers the Court to the Decision for its contents (R3535-41), \nbut denies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 28 of the \nPetition. \n29. \nAdmits that all versions of the Formal Complaint included allegations that Doe \nviolated Cornell\u2019s Policy 6.4 prohibition against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Assault, but \ndenies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 29 of the Petition.  \nAnswering further, Cornell states that all versions of the Formal Complaint provided there would \nbe an investigation pursuant to the Procedures and explicitly stated that \u201c[t]he University may \nhold the Respondents accountable for violations of Policy 6.4 and other policies that are not \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n8 of 20\n\n--- Page 9 ---\n9 \nreferenced in the Formal Complaint but are learned about from evidence, testimony, or \nadmissions during the investigation and adjudication process.\u201d  R1044, 1050, 1056.   \nVIII. \nAttempting Sexual Exploitation is a Distinct Charge Under Cornell\u2019s Policy \n30. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 30 of the \nPetition, and respectfully directs the Court\u2019s attention to Sections 3.2 and 3.6 of the Procedures \nfor the elements of Sexual Exploitation and Attempting to Commit Prohibited Conduct.  \nAnswering further, Cornell notes that \u201cattempting prohibited conduct\u201d under the Procedures \ninvolves the same elements as the actual conduct: pursuant to Section 3.2 \u201c[a] person attempts to \ncommit prohibited conduct if, with the intent to commit such conduct, that person engages in \nconduct directly tending toward completion of the prohibited conduct.\u201d   \n31. \nAdmits that, under Section 3.2 of the Procedures, \u201c[a] person attempts to commit \nprohibited conduct if, with the intent to commit such conduct, that person engages in conduct \ndirectly tending toward completion of the prohibited conduct,\u201d but denies the remaining \nallegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 31 of the Petition.  Answering further, \nCornell refers to its response in paragraph 30 above. \n32. \nAdmits that, under Section 3.6 of the Procedures, Sexual Exploitation is defined \nas \u201cintentionally engaging in\u201d any of the listed conduct, including \u201c[o]bserving another person \nwhen that person is nude or engaged in sexual activity without the knowledge and consent of the \nperson observed or allowing another to observe consensual sexual activity without the \nknowledge and consent of all parties involved,\u201d but denies the remaining allegations and \ncharacterizations contained in paragraph 32 of the Petition. \n33. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 33 of the \nPetition, and refers to its responses in paragraphs 29-32 above.  Answering further, as outlined in \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n9 of 20\n\n--- Page 10 ---\n10 \nCornell\u2019s accompanying Memorandum of Law, the record in this matter clearly demonstrates \nthat Doe\u2019s defenses centered around his intent when entering the \u201cAlumni\u201d room, which is \ndirectly relevant to the standard for attempting prohibited conduct under Section 3.2 of the \nProcedures.   \n34. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 34 of the \nPetition, and refers to its responses in paragraphs 29-33 above.  Answering further, as outlined in \nCornell\u2019s accompanying Memorandum of Law, the record in this matter clearly demonstrates \nthat Doe\u2019s defenses centered around his intent when entering the \u201cAlumni\u201d room, which is \ndirectly relevant to the standard for attempting prohibited conduct under Section 3.2 of the \nProcedures. \n35. \nAdmits that the Hearing Panel determined that Doe was responsible for violating \nCornell\u2019s Policy 6.4 prohibition against attempting prohibited conduct, respectfully refers the \nCourt to the Hearing Panel Decision for its contents (R3535-41), but denies the remaining \nallegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 35 of the Petition.   Answering further, \nCornell refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n36. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 36 of the \nPetition, and refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above.  Answering further, as \noutlined in Cornell\u2019s accompanying Memorandum of Law, the record in this matter clearly \ndemonstrates that Doe\u2019s defenses centered around his intent when entering the \u201cAlumni\u201d room, \nwhich is directly relevant to the standard for attempted prohibited conduct under Section 3.2 of \nthe Procedures. \n37. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 37 of the \nPetition, and refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above.  Answering further, Cornell \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n10 of 20\n\n--- Page 11 ---\n11 \nnotes that \u201cattempting prohibited conduct\u201d under the Procedures involves the same elements as \nthe actual conduct: pursuant to Section 3.2 \u201c[a] person attempts to commit prohibited conduct if, \nwith the intent to commit such conduct, that person engages in conduct directly tending toward \ncompletion of the prohibited conduct.\u201d   \n38. \nAdmits that Doe appealed the Hearing Panel\u2019s Decision, pursuant to the \nProcedures, and respectfully refers the Court to his appeal for its contents (R3602-19), but denies \nthe remaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 38 of the Petition.  In \nresponse to footnote 3, Cornell admits upon information and belief that Savannah Bao was the \nDirector of eCornell Masters Programs at the Cornell University SC Johnson College of \nBusiness at all relevant times, but denies the remaining allegations contained therein. \nIX. \nDoe\u2019s Arguments Before Cornell\u2019s Appeal Panel \n39. \nAdmits that Doe appealed the Hearing Panel\u2019s Decision, pursuant to the \nProcedures, respectfully refers the Court to his appeal for its contents (R3602-19), but denies the \nremaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 39 of the Petition.  \nAnswering further, Cornell refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n40. \nAdmits that Doe appealed the Hearing Panel\u2019s Decision, pursuant to the \nProcedures, respectfully refers the Court to his appeal for its contents (R3602-19), but denies the \nremaining allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 40 of the Petition.  \nAnswering further, as outlined in Cornell\u2019s accompanying Memorandum of Law, Doe\u2019s \nconcerns regarding Bao were addressed promptly and contemporaneously, and the Hearing \nChair, who had full discretion under Section 26.10 of the Procedures, determined there was no \nbasis to grant the request from Doe\u2019s counsel for a new Hearing Panel and for the hearing to \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n11 of 20\n\n--- Page 12 ---\n12 \nrestart.  Answering further, Cornell refers to the Hearing Chair\u2019s Decision for its contents.  \nR3459-60. \n41. \nAdmits that Doe appealed the Hearing Panel\u2019s Decision, pursuant to the \nProcedures, respectfully refers the Court to his appeal for its contents (R3602-19) and to the \nHearing Chair\u2019s Decision for its contents (R3459-60), but denies the remaining allegations and \ncharacterizations contained in paragraph 41 of the Petition.  Answering further, Cornell refers to \nits response in paragraph 40 above.  In response to footnote 4, Cornell respectfully refers the \nCourt to Section 26.10.1 of the Procedures, which speaks for itself, and denies the remaining \nallegations and characterizations therein. \nX. \nThe Appeal Panel Affirms the Decision of the Hearing Panel \n42. \nAdmits the Appeal Panel unanimously affirmed the Hearing Panel Decision with \nregard to Doe\u2019s appeal. \n43. \nAdmits the Appeal Panel unanimously affirmed the Hearing Panel\u2019s Decision, \nwith regard to Doe\u2019s appeal, respectfully refers the Court to the Appeal Decision for its contents \n(R3629-30), but denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 43 of the Petition.  In \nresponse to footnote 5, Cornell denies the allegations and characterizations therein, and refers to \nits responses in paragraphs 26 and 29 above.  Answering further, Cornell states that all versions \nof the Formal Complaint provided there would be an investigation pursuant to the Procedures \nand explicitly stated that \u201c[t]he University may hold the Respondents accountable for violations \nof Policy 6.4 and other policies that are not referenced in the Formal Complaint but are learned \nabout from evidence, testimony, or admissions during the investigation and adjudication \nprocess.\u201d  R1044, 1050, 1056.   \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n12 of 20\n\n--- Page 13 ---\n13 \n44. \nAdmits the Appeal Panel unanimously affirmed the Hearing Panel\u2019s Decision, \nwith regard to Doe\u2019s appeal, respectfully refers the Court to the Appeal Decision for its contents \n(R3629-30), but denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 44 of the Petition.  \n45. \nAdmits the Appeal Decision was the final University action in terms of this \nproceeding and Doe, and, as to the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 45 of the \nPetition, such allegations contain legal conclusions, for which no response is required. \nPoints of Law \nThe Court\u2019s Role in Reviewing Disciplinary Matters at Private Schools \n46. \nRefers the Court to the cited legal authority for its contents and, as to the \nremaining allegations contained in paragraph 46 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law. \n47. \nRefers the Court to the cited legal authority for its contents and, as to the \nremaining allegations contained in paragraph 47 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law. \n48. \nRefers the Court to the cited legal authority for its contents and, as to the \nremaining allegations contained in paragraph 48 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law. \nThe Requirement to Give Students Notice of Violations  \n49. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 49 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n13 of 20\n\n--- Page 14 ---\n14 \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law and notes that Doe is not citing New York \ncase law for this asserted legal principle. \n50. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 50 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law and notes that Doe is not citing New York \ncase law for this asserted legal principle. \n51. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 51 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law, notes that Doe is not citing New York case \nlaw for this legal argument, and otherwise refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n52. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 52 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law, notes that Doe is not citing New York case \nlaw for this legal argument and otherwise refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n53. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 53 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law, notes that Doe is not citing New York case \nlaw for this legal argument and otherwise refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n14 of 20\n\n--- Page 15 ---\n15 \n54. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 54 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law, notes that Doe is not citing New York case \nlaw for this legal argument and otherwise refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n55. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 55 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law, notes that Doe is not citing New York case \nlaw for this legal argument and otherwise refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n56. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 56 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, denies the \nallegations and characterizations therein.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference \nits accompanying Memorandum of Law, notes that Doe is not citing New York case law for this \nlegal argument and otherwise refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n57. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 57 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, denies the \nallegations and characterizations therein.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference \nits accompanying Memorandum of Law, notes that Doe is not citing New York case law for this \nlegal argument and otherwise refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n15 of 20\n\n--- Page 16 ---\n16 \n58. \nRefers the Court to the cited non-binding legal authority for its contents and, as to \nthe remaining allegations contained in paragraph 58 of the Petition, such allegations contain legal \nconclusions, for which no response is required.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by \nreference its accompanying Memorandum of Law, notes that Doe is not citing New York case \nlaw for this legal argument and otherwise refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \nCount I \n(Declaratory Judgment Vacating the Appeal Panel\u2019s Decision) \n \n59. \nRepeats and reiterates the above responses to the Petition as if those responses \nwere again set forth in full. \n60. \nParagraph 60 of the Petition states a legal conclusion that does not require a \nresponse; however, to the extent required, Cornell denies the allegations contained therein. \n61. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 61 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law. \n62. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 62 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, the proper means by which to challenge the underlying decision is \nto commence an Article 78 proceeding, which Doe has done. \n63. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 63 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, the proper means by which to challenge the underlying decision is \nto commence an Article 78 proceeding, which Doe has done. \n64. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 64 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law. \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n16 of 20\n\n--- Page 17 ---\n17 \n65. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 65 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law. \n66. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 66 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law. \n67. \n Denies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 67 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law. \n68. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 68 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law. \n69. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 69 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law and refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n70. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 70 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law and refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n71. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 71 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law and refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n17 of 20\n\n--- Page 18 ---\n18 \n72. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 72 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law and refers to its responses in paragraphs 26, 29-33 above. \n73. \nDenies the allegations and characterizations contained in paragraph 73 of the \nPetition.  Answering further, Cornell incorporates by reference its accompanying Memorandum \nof Law and notes that the proper means by which to challenge the underlying decision is to \ncommence an Article 78 proceeding. \n74. \nParagraph 74 of the Petition is a request for relief that does not require a response. \nNonetheless, to the extent required, Cornell denies the allegations and characterizations \ncontained therein. Cornell also denies that Doe is entitled to any of the relief he requests in \nparagraph 74 of the Petition. \nCONCLUDING DENIAL OF ALLEGATIONS AND REQUESTED RELIEF \n75. \nDenies each and every allegation not otherwise expressly admitted or otherwise \ncontroverted herein, denies that Doe is entitled to any of the relief listed in the \u201cRequested \nRelief\u201d section of the Petition at page 16, and denies that Doe is entitled to any relief at all. \nAS AND FOR A FIRST OBJECTION IN POINT OF LAW \n76. \nAs demonstrated in Cornell\u2019s accompanying Memorandum of Law, the Verified \nPetition fails to state a claim for relief under Article 78 of the CPLR (or any other section of the \nCPLR) as there was no deviation from rules, published policies, or procedures.   \nAS AND FOR A SECOND OBJECTION IN POINT OF LAW \n77. \nAs demonstrated in Cornell\u2019s accompanying Memorandum of Law, documentary \nevidence conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims. \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n18 of 20\n\n--- Page 19 ---\n19 \nAS AND FOR A THIRD OBJECTION IN POINT OF LAW \n78. \nAs demonstrated in Cornell\u2019s accompanying Memorandum of Law, Cornell \nsubstantially complied with its own rules, published policies, and procedures in connection with \nthe Formal Complaint against Doe, the related investigation, the hearing, and the findings of the \nHearing Panel, which were affirmed by the Appeal Panel. \nAS AND FOR A FOURTH OBJECTION IN POINT OF LAW \n79. \nAs demonstrated in Cornell\u2019s accompanying Memorandum of Law, Doe\u2019s request \nfor Declaratory Judgment, pursuant to CPLR \u00a7 3001, is improper as a matter of law. \nAS AND FOR A FIFTH OBJECTION IN POINT OF LAW \n80. \nCornell has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with all applicable \nstatutes and regulations with regard to Doe. \nAS AND FOR A SIXTH OBJECTION IN POINT OF LAW \n81. \nCornell\u2019s actions were in all respects legal, proper, reasonable, and in conformity \nwith all applicable laws and regulations, and were neither arbitrary nor capricious. \n \nWHEREFORE, Cornell respectfully requests that the Petition be denied and dismissed \nin its entirety with prejudice, together with such other and further relief as may be just and \nproper. \nDated:  July 17, 2026  \n \n   \n    Respectfully submitted,  \n \n \n/s/ Adam G. Pence \n \n \nADAM G. PENCE \n \n \nTHOMAS HOEHNER \n \n \nRYAN T. NELSON \n \n \nCornell University, Office of General Counsel \n \n \n118 Sage Place \n \n \nIthaca, NY  14850 \n \n \n(607) 255-5124 \n \n \n \nAttorneys for Respondent Cornell University \nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n19 of 20\n\n--- Page 20 ---\nCI2026-16153\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2026 04:17 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 28\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2026\n20 of 20","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/498/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/498"}