{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"EXHIBIT(S) - A\r\n            \u00a0(Motion #1) Exhibit to Notice of Entry (Copy of Decision, Order, and Judgment)","alternateName":"NYSCEF-case-4c779433507a-000039.pdf","caption":"NYSCEF document #39 | Filed: 2026-09-23 | 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/504/raw","datePublished":"2026-10-19T12:20:42+00:00","description":"NYSCEF document #39 | Filed: 2026-09-23 | 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":"504","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/504/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/504/index.md"},"name":"EXHIBIT(S) - A\r\n            \u00a0(Motion #1) Exhibit to Notice of Entry (Copy of Decision, Order, and Judgment)","ocrStatus":"ready","ocrText":"--- Page 1 ---\nAt a Motion Term of the Supreme\nCourt of the State of NewYork, held\nin and for the Sixth\nJudicial\nDistrict,\nby Microsoft\nTeamson the 21st day\nof August, 2026.\nPRESENT: HON.MARKG. MASLER\nJustice\nPresiding.\nSTATEOFNEWYORK\nSUPREMECOURT\nCOUNTYOFTOMPKINS\nIn the Matter of the Application\nof\nJOHNDOE,\nDECISION, ORDER,\nPetitioner,\nANDJUDGMENT\nv\nIndex No. EF2026-0292\nCORNELLUNIVERSITY,\nRespondent.\nAPPEARANCES:\nBUSHELL, SOVAK,KANE& SASHLLP\nBy:\nAlan E. Sash, Esq.\nAttorneys\nfor\nPetitioner\nVia NYSCEF\nSALANDLAWPC\nBy:\nJeremy Saland,\nEsq.\nAttorneys\nfor\nPetitioner\n274 Madison Avenue,\nSuite\n1401\nNewYork, NY10016\nVia USPS\nCORNELLUNIVERSITY OFFICEOFGENERALCOUNSEL\nBy:\nAdamG. Pence, Esq.\nAttorneys\nfor Respondent\nVia NYSCEF\n-\n1\n-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex # : EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n1 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex # : EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nMARKG. MASLER,J. S. C.\nJane Roe filed\na complaint\nwith Cornell\nUniversity\nalleging\nthat\nshe was the victim\nof a\nsexual\nassault\ninvolving\nmultiple\nfraternity\nmembersthat\noccurred\nduring\na party\nshe attended\nat\nthe Chi Phi fraternity\nhouse between October 19 and October 20, 2024.\nPetitioner\nwas a student\nat Cornell\nUniversity,\na member of Chi Phi fraternity,\na resident\nof the\nfraternity\nhouse, and\npresent\nat the party\nduring\nthe time of the alleged\nassault.\nOnNovember 22, 2024,\nCornell\nissued a formal\ncomplaint\ncharging\nseven fraternity\nmembers, including\npetitioner,\nwith\nviolating\nits\nTitle\nIX policy\n(known as Policy\n6.4).\nIn the formal\ncomplaint,\npetitioner\nwas \"accusedof\nviolating\nCornell\nUniversity's\nPolicy\n6.4 prohibition\nagainst\nSexual\nExploitation\n[and]\nSexual\nAssault\"\n(NY St Cts Elec\nFiling\n[NYSCEF] Doc No. 19 at R-01046).1\nThe formal\ncomplaint\nalso\nadvised\nthat\nCornell\n\"may hold the Respondents accountable\nfor\nviolations\nof Policy\n6.4 and\nother\npolicies\nthat\nare not referenced\nin the Formal Complaint\nbut are learned about from\nevidence,\ntestimony,\nor admissions during\nthe investigation\nand adjudication\nprocess\"\n(NYSCEF\nDoc No. 19 at R-01044, R-01050, R-01056).\nAn evidentiary\nhearing\nthat\nlasted\n12 days was held before\na three-member\nhearing\npanel.\nPetitioner\nactively\nparticipated\nin the hearing.\nHe was represented\nby counsel, who cross-\nexamined numerous witnesses,\nand testified\nin his own behalf.\nThe hearing\npanel\nissued a\ndecision\ndated August\n18, 2025 that,\nin relevant\npart,\nfound that\npetitioner\nwas not responsible\nfor Sexual Assault\nor Sexual Exploitation,\nbut that he was responsible\nfor Attempted\nSexual\n1 Cornell\nrevised\nthe formal complaint\nin January\nand March 2025, however the\naccusations\nagainst\npetitioner\nwere not materially\naltered\n(see NYSCEFDoc No. 19 at R-01050\n- R-01053; R-01056 - R-01059).\nIn the copy of the\ninitial\nformal\ncomplaint\nfiled\nwith the\npetition,\ncomplainant's\nname, the summary of alleged\nmisconduct,\nand the namesof others\naccused of violations\narising\nfrom the incident\nwere redacted\n(see NYSCEFDoc No. 4).\nThe\nrecord,\nwhich\nis sealed pursuant\nto an order on stipulation,\ncontains\nunredacted\ncopies of the\nformal\ncomplaint\nand its\nrevisions\n(see NYSCEFDoc No. 19 at R-01044 - R-01059).\n- 2\n-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n2 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nExploitation.\nPetitioner\nfiled\nan administrative\nappeal\nraising\nseveral\nissues,\nincluding:\n(1)\nthe\ncontention\nthat\nthe hearing\nwas compromised because panel member Savannah Bao was\ndistracted\nduring\nthe hearing,\nincluding\na 45-minute\nperiod when she was participating\nby\nvideoconference\nwhile\ndriving\na car during\nthe testimony\nof a witness\nto petitioner's\nconduct\nduring\nthe\nincident;\n(2) the objection\nthat he had been found responsible\nfor\na violation\nthat he\nhad not been charged with;\nand (3)\nthe contention\nthat\nthe finding\nhe was responsible\nfor\nAttempted\nSexual Exploitation\nwas clearly\nerroneous.\nA three-member\nappeal panel\nissued a\ndecision\ndated January 14, 2026 denying the appeal\nin\nits\nentirety.\nPetitioner\ncommencedthis\nproceeding on March 30, 2026 seeking judgment\nannulling\nthe decision\nfinding\nhim responsible\nfor Attempted\nSexual Exploitation,\nvacating\nall\npenalties\nimposed against\nhim, and expunging\nall\nreferences\nto the underlying\ncharges from his academic record.2\nIn this\nproceeding,\npetitioner\ndoes not contend that\nthe decision\nof the hearing\npanel was not supported\nby substantial\nevidence.\nRather,\nhe argues only\nthat\nCornell\nfailed\nto follow\nrelevant\nlaw and its ownpolicy\nby finding\nhim responsible\nfor\na violation\nthat he was not charged with.3\n2 The petition\nseeks declaratory\njudgment;\nhowever,\npetitioner\ndid not\nfile\nand serve a\nsummons as required\nto commencea hybrid CPLRarticle\n78 proceeding and action\nfor\na\ndeclaratory\njudgment\n(see Matter of Nicholas v Martuscello,\n245 AD3d1055, 1058 [3d Dept\n2026]).\nIn any event,\n\"[a]\ntrial\ncourt maydecline\nto entertain\nan action\nfor\ndeclaratory\njudgment\nwhere other adequate remedies are available,\nsuch as a CPLRarticle\n78 proceeding\nto challenge\nan administrative\ndetermination\"\n(Matter\nof Gable Transp.,\nInc.\nv State\nof NewYork, 29 AD3d\n1125, 1127 [3d Dept 2006]).\nThe request\nfor\na declaratory\njudgment\nhas not been considered\nbecause it was not properly\nmade and is duplicative\nand unnecessary in light\nof the remedy\navailable\nthrough the CPLRarticle\n78 proceeding\n(see\nid.).\n3 The petition\nalso\nalleges\nthat\nthe hearing was compromised by the inattention\nof panel\nmember Bao during\ntestimony\npetitioner\ncontends\nwas critical\nto his defense\n(see NYSCEFDoc\nNo.\n1, petition,\n\u00b6\u00b6 38, 40-42,\n44);\nhowever, petitioner\ndoes not rely\non these allegations\nas a basis\nfor\nchallenging\nthe administrative\ndetermination.\nIn this\nregard,\nit bears emphasizing\nthat no\nrequest\nfor\nrelief\nmade in the petition\nwas based on allegations\nregarding\nBao's conduct during\nthe hearing\n(see petition\n\u00b6\u00b6 46-74),\nnor was any argument seeking\naffirmative\nrelief\nbased on\n-\n3\n-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n3 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n\n--- Page 4 ---\nPetitioner\nwas found responsible\nfor Attempted\nSexual Exploitation,\na charge\nthat was\nnot expressly\nmentioned\nin the formal\ncomplaint\nor any other pre-hearing\nnotice\nthat was\nprovided\nto petitioner.\nAs relevant\nhere,\nSexual Exploitation\nis defined\nas \"intentionally\nengaging in\n. . . [o]bserving\nanother person when that person is nude or engaged in sexual\nactivity\nwithout\nthe knowledge and consent of the person observed\" (NYSCEFDoc No. 31,\nPolicy\n6.4 procedures,\n\u00a7 3.6).\nAttempting\nto Commit Prohibited\nConduct\nis separately\ndefined\nas occurring\nwhen, \"with\nthe intent\nto commit such conduct,\n[a] person engages in conduct\ndirectly\ntending\ntoward completion\nof the prohibited\nconduct\"\n(Policy\n6.4 procedures\n\u00a7 3.2).\nPetitioner\nargues that\nSexual Exploitation\nand Attempted\nSexual Exploitation\nare distinct\noffenses\nbecause they\nare separately\ndefined\nin Policy\n6.4, and argues\nthat\n\"Cornell\ncannot\nsimply add on lesser\nincluded\noffenses\nafter\nthe hearing\nis concluded\" (NYSCEFDoc No. 36,\npetitioner's\nmemin reply,\nat 5).\nCornell\nargues that\nthe elements\nof prohibited\nconduct,\nsuch as\nSexual Exploitation,\nand attempted\nprohibited\nconduct are the same, noting\nthat\nthe\nanalysis\nof\nwhether a person engaged in attempted\nprohibited\nconduct is necessarily\nbased on the elements\nof the underlying\nspecific\nviolation\ncharged.\nIt\nfurther\ncontends\nthat\nthe notice\nprovided\nto\npetitioner\nwas sufficient\nto apprise him of the facts\non which the charges were based and to\nBao's conduct made in petitioner's\nreply memorandum of law or at oral\nargument.\nThus,\nit\nappears\nthat\nthe\nallegations\nmade in the petition\nregarding\nBao's conduct merely provide\ncontext\nby identifying\nall\nissues\nthat were raised\nand decided in petitioner's\nadministrative\nappeal of the\ndecision\nof the hearing\npanel.\nWere this\nissue\nto be considered\non the merits,\nthere\nis no basis\nfor\nfinding\nthat\nthe\nchair\nof the hearing\npanel abused her discretion\nin denying petitioner's\nrequest\nto declare\na mishearing based on Bao's conduct during\nthe hearing\n(see Policy\n6.4\nprocedures\n\u00a7 26.10.1).\nThe time\nthat Bao observed the hearing\nfrom her car amounted to only\n45 minutes out of a 12-day hearing,\nand covered only\n15 pages of the\n1,732-page\ntranscript.\nBao stated\nshe observed the testimony\nthat was given while\nshe was in her car, and she also\nobserved the ensuing\ncross-examination\nof the witness\nby petitioner's\nattorney,\nwhich\nimmediately\nfollowed\nand recapped much of the direct\ntestimony.\nFinally,\nthe decision\nof the\nthree-member hearing\npanel was unanimous.\n- 4\n-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n4 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n\n--- Page 5 ---\npermit\nhim to present\na defense.\nFinally,\nit\nalso\nargues that\npetitioner\nwas informed from the\nbeginning of the process\nthat he could be held accountable\nfor\nviolations\nnot referred\nto in the\nformal\ncomplaint,\nbut that maybe later\nidentified\nduring\nthe\ninvestigation\nand adjudication\nprocess.\nIt\nis thus necessary\nto consider\nthe extent of notice\nrequired\nto be provided\nto students\naccused of violating\nPolicy\n6.4.\nEducation Law article\n129-B, commonly known as the Enough\nis Enough Law, was enacted\nin 2015 to \"require\nall\ncolleges\nand universities\nin the State of New\nYork to implement uniform\nprevention\nand response\npolicies\nand procedures\nrelating\nto sexual\nassault,\ndomestic violence,\ndating\nviolence,\nand stalking\"\n(Matter\nof Jacobson v Blaise,\n157\nAD3d1072, 1074 [3d Dept 2018]\n[internal\nquotation\nmarks, ellipsis,\nand citation\nomitted]).\nAs\nrelevant\nhere,\nthe law provides\nstandards\nfor\nthe minimum process\nto be afforded\na student\naccused of \"sexual\nassault,\ndomestic violence,\ndating\nviolence,\nstalking,\nor sexual\nactivity\nthat\nmay otherwise\nviolate\nthe\ninstitution's\ncode of conduct\"\n(Education\nLaw \u00a7 6444 [5]\n[b],\n[c]\n[emphasis\nadded]).\nThese requirements\ninclude\nbeing provided with\n(1) \"notice\n. . . describing\nthe date,\ntime,\nlocation\nand factual\nallegations\nconcerning\nthe\nviolation,\na reference\nto the\nspecific\ncode of conduct provisions\nalleged\nto have been violated,\nand possible\nsanctions\"\n(Education\nLaw \u00a7 6444 [5]\n[b]\n[i]);\nand (2) written\nor electronic\nnotice\n\"of the\nspecific\nrule,\nrules\nor laws alleged\nto have been violated\nand in what manner\" (Education\nLaw \u00a7 6444 [5]\n[c]\n[vii]).4\nBy its\nterms, Education Law \u00a7 6444 (5)\nspecifies\nthe notice\nrequired\nto be provided\nonly\nwhen a student\nis accused,\nas relevant\nhere,\nof sexual\nassault\nor sexual\nactivity\nthat may\notherwise\nviolate\nthe\ninstitution's\ncode of conduct.\nRespondent satisfied\nthis\nrequirement\nby\n4 A list\nof possible\nsanctions\nis provided\nwithin\nPolicy\n6.4\n(see Policy\n6.4 procedures\n\u00a7\n26.13).\n-5-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n5 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n\n--- Page 6 ---\nproviding\npetitioner\nwritten\nnotice\nin the formal\ncomplaint\nthat he was accused of Sexual\nAssault.\nThe formal\ncomplaint\nalso\nreferred\nto Policy\n6.4's\nprohibition\nagainst\nSexual\nExploitation,\nan offense\nwhich\nis not included\nin those specifically\nenumerated in Education Law\n\u00a7 6444 (5).\nFor purposes of the Enough is Enough Law, \"sexual\nactivity\"\nis defined\nas having\n\"the same meaning as 'sexual\nact'\nand 'sexual\ncontact'\nas provided\nin 18 USC2246 (2) and 18\nUSC2246 (3)\"\n(Education\nLaw \u00a7 6439 [10]).\nIn turn,\n\"sexual\nact\"\nand \"sexual\ncontact\"\nare\ndefined\nas a number of acts\nthat\nrequire\nphysical\ncontact\n(see\n18 USC2246 [2],\n[3]).\nThe\noffense\nof Sexual Exploitation\ndoes not\nfall\nwithin\nthe statutory\ndefinition\nof sexual\nactivity\nbecause the elements\nthereof\ndo not include\nany of the activities\nlisted\nin\n18 USC2246 (2) and\n(3)\nthat\nrequire\nphysical\ncontact,\nand thus does not\nfall\nwithin\nthe scope of \"sexual\nactivity\nthat\nmayotherwise\nviolate\nthe\ninstitution's\ncode of conduct.\"\nAccordingly,\nneither\nEducation Law \u00a7\n6444 (5)\n(b)\n(i)\nnor \u00a7 6444 (5)\n(c)\n(vii)\nrequire\nthat\npetitioner\nhave been provided with notice\nthat\nhe could be found responsible\nfor Sexual Exploitation\nor Attempted\nSexual Exploitation.\nPolicy\n6.4 does not expressly\nrequire\nthat an accused student be notified\nof the specific\ncode of conduct provisions,\nor rule\nor law,\nalleged\nto have been violated.\nRather,\nit requires\nthat\nan accused student be provided with notice\nof the \"alleged\nprohibited\nconduct and its\ndate,\ntime,\nand location,\nto the extent known,\"\nand the\n\"factual\nallegations\npertaining\nto the prohibited\nconduct\"\n(Policy\n6.4 procedures\n\u00a7 18).\nIt\nfurther\nprovides\nthat when a case is referred\nfor\na\nhearing,\nthe notice\nof hearing\nmust apprise an accused student of \"the\ncharges\nat issue\"\n(Policy\n6.4 procedures\n\u00a7 26.4).\nThe formal\ncomplaint\nidentified\nthe complainant,\nprovided\nthe\ndates\nand location\nof the\nincident,\nset forth\na summary of alleged\nmisconduct\nconsisting\nof approximately\ntwo pages that\nidentified\nthe other students\naccused of violations\narising\nfrom the\nincident,\nadvised\npetitioner\n- 6\n-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n6 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n\n--- Page 7 ---\nthat he was accused of violating\nthe prohibitions\nagainst\nSexual Assault\nand Sexual Exploitation,\nand set forth\nthe specific\nfacts\napplicable\nto the charges made against\npetitioner\n(NYSCEFDoc\nNo. 19 at R-01044 - R-01059).\nAccordingly,\nthe formal\ncomplaint\nprovided\npetitioner\nwith\nnotice\nadequate\nto comply with Policy\n6.4 and to satisfy\ndue process\n(see Matter\nof Jacobson v\nBlaise,\n157 AD3dat 1075; NewYork State Education Department, Complying\nwith Education\nLaw Article\n129-B at 26 [The notice\nprovided\n\"should\nbe specific\nenough to allow\na reasonable\nperson to present\na defense,\npursuant\nto institutional\npolicy,\nbut need not be so long and detailed\nthat\nit negatively\nimpacts\nthe studentconduct\nprocess\"]).5\nPetitioner's\nargument that\nfinding\nhim responsible\nfor Attempted\nSexual Exploitation\nis\narbitrary\nand capricious\nbecause the formal\ncomplaint\ndid not specifically\nprovide\nnotice\nthat he\nwas accused of violating\nthat\nsection\nof Policy\n6.4\nis also unavailing\nfor the following\nadditional\nreasons.\nFirst,\npetitioner\nwas advised\nthat he could be held accountable\nfor\nviolations\nnot\nreferred\nto in the formal\ncomplaint\nthat maybe identified\nduring\nthe\ninvestigation\nand\nadjudication\nprocess.\nThe Department of Education has specifically\nnoted that:\n\"Nothing\nin the paragraph [Education\nLaw \u00a7 6444 (5)\n(b)]\nprohibits\nan institution\nfrom holding\nstudents\naccountable\nfor\nviolations\nthat\nare not referenced\nin the\ninitial\ncharge\nletter\nbut are learned\nabout from evidence,\ntestimony,\nor admission\nat a hearing\nor during\nthe\ninvestigatory\nprocess,\nconsistent\nwith\ninstitution\npolicies\nand due process, where applicable\"\n(New York State Education Department,\nComplying\nwith Education Law Article\n129-B at 26).\nSecond, as noted by Cornell,\nAttempted\nSexual Exploitation\nadds no elements\nto Sexual\nExploitation.\nAccordingly,\nthe formal\ncomplaint\nprovided\npetitioner\nwith notice\nof alleged\nfacts\n5 TheNewYork State Education Department guidance document entitled\n\"Complying\nwith Education Law Article\n129-B,\"\nwhich was cited\nby the Appellate\nDivision,\nThird\nDepartment,\nin Matter of Jacobson v Blaise\n(157 AD3dat 1074), maybe found at\nhttps://www.nysed.gov/sites/default/files/article-129-b-guidance.pdf\n(last\naccessed September\n23, 2026).\n- 7\n-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n7 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n\n--- Page 8 ---\nrelevant\nto his conduct to support\nthe charge\nfor Attempted\nSexual Exploitation.\nThe elements\nof Attempted\nSexual Exploitation\n- the\nintent\nto commit Sexual Exploitation\nand affirmative\nacts\ntending\ntoward\nits completion - were necessarily\nat issue\nin the evidentiary\nhearing,\nand\npetitioner\nhad the opportunity\nto present\nrelevant\nevidence,\narguments,\nand defenses.\nSince\nthe\nelements\nof prohibited\nconduct include\nthe elements\nof attempted\nprohibited\nconduct the analysis\nof whether a person attempted\nprohibited\nconduct\nis necessarily\nbased on the elements\nof the\nunderlying\nspecific\nviolation\ncharged.\nThis\nis the sameanalysis\nemployed\nin considering\nlesser\nincluded\ncharges\nfor\ncriminal\ndefendants,\na concept\nthat\npetitioner\nalluded\nto in arguments that\ncompare the attempt\ncharge\nto a \"lesser\nincluded\noffense\"\n(petitioner's\nmemin reply\nat 5,\n9).\nIn\nthe criminal\ncontext,\na lesser\nincluded\noffense\nis defined\nas follows:\n\"When it\nis impossible\nto commit a particular\ncrime without\nconcomitantly\ncommitting,\nby the same conduct,\nanother\noffense\nof lesser\ngrade or degree,\nthe\nlatter\nis, with respect\nto the former,\na 'lesser\nincluded\noffense.'\nIn any case in\nwhich\nit\nis legally\npossible\nto attempt\nto commit a crime,\nan attempt\nto commit\nsuch crime constitutes\na lesser\nincluded\noffense\nwith\nrespect\nthereto\"\n(CPL 1.20\n[37]\n[emphasis\nadded]).\nThus,\nthe hearing\npanel's\ndecision\nfinding\npetitioner\nresponsible\nfor Attempted\nSexual\nExploitation\nis analogous to the imposition\nagainst\na criminal\ndefendant\nof a charge\nfor\nthe\nlesser\nincluded\noffense\nof attempting\nto commit the crime with which\nthe defendant\nwas indicted.\nIf a\ncriminal\ndefendant,\nwhose liberty\ninterests\nare at stake, maybe convicted\nof a lesser\nincluded\noffense\nwith which he or she was not specifically\nindicted\n- including\nan attempt\nto commit the\ngreater\ncount - then the finding\nthat\npetitioner\nwas responsible\nfor Attempted\nSexual\nExploitation\ncannot be considered\nto have been arbitrary\nand capricious.\nBased on the foregoing,\nthe petition\nis dismissed.\nThis\ndecision\nconstitutes\nthe order and judgment\nof the court.\nThe filing\nof this\ndecision,\norder,\nand judgment,\nor the\ntransmittal\nof copies\nhereof,\nby the court\nshall\nnot constitute\nnotice\nof\n- 8\n-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n8 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n\n--- Page 9 ---\nentry\n(see\ne.g. CPLR2221 [d]\n[3];\n5513).\nThe prevailing\nparty\nshall\nserve notice\nof entry hereof\nas required\nby CPLR2220 (b) and Uniform\nRules for\nTrial\nCourts\n(22 NYCRR)\u00a7 202.5-b\n(h)\n(2).\nDated:\nSeptember 23, 2026\nCortland,\nNewYork\n64/--\na\nD\n2\n.23\nENTER\nHON.MARKG. MASLER\nSupreme Court Justice\n- 9\n-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n9 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n\n--- Page 10 ---\nThe following\ndocuments filed\nwith the Clerk of the County of Tompkins via the New\nYork State\nCourts\nElectronic\nFiling\nSystem were considered\nherein\n(see CPLR2219 [a]):\nDocument Numbers 1-8;\n10; 14-36.\n-\n10\n-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n10 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026","text":"--- Page 1 ---\nAt a Motion Term of the Supreme\nCourt of the State of NewYork, held\nin and for the Sixth\nJudicial\nDistrict,\nby Microsoft\nTeamson the 21st day\nof August, 2026.\nPRESENT: HON.MARKG. MASLER\nJustice\nPresiding.\nSTATEOFNEWYORK\nSUPREMECOURT\nCOUNTYOFTOMPKINS\nIn the Matter of the Application\nof\nJOHNDOE,\nDECISION, ORDER,\nPetitioner,\nANDJUDGMENT\nv\nIndex No. EF2026-0292\nCORNELLUNIVERSITY,\nRespondent.\nAPPEARANCES:\nBUSHELL, SOVAK,KANE& SASHLLP\nBy:\nAlan E. Sash, Esq.\nAttorneys\nfor\nPetitioner\nVia NYSCEF\nSALANDLAWPC\nBy:\nJeremy Saland,\nEsq.\nAttorneys\nfor\nPetitioner\n274 Madison Avenue,\nSuite\n1401\nNewYork, NY10016\nVia USPS\nCORNELLUNIVERSITY OFFICEOFGENERALCOUNSEL\nBy:\nAdamG. Pence, Esq.\nAttorneys\nfor Respondent\nVia NYSCEF\n-\n1\n-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex # : EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n1 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex # : EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nMARKG. MASLER,J. S. C.\nJane Roe filed\na complaint\nwith Cornell\nUniversity\nalleging\nthat\nshe was the victim\nof a\nsexual\nassault\ninvolving\nmultiple\nfraternity\nmembersthat\noccurred\nduring\na party\nshe attended\nat\nthe Chi Phi fraternity\nhouse between October 19 and October 20, 2024.\nPetitioner\nwas a student\nat Cornell\nUniversity,\na member of Chi Phi fraternity,\na resident\nof the\nfraternity\nhouse, and\npresent\nat the party\nduring\nthe time of the alleged\nassault.\nOnNovember 22, 2024,\nCornell\nissued a formal\ncomplaint\ncharging\nseven fraternity\nmembers, including\npetitioner,\nwith\nviolating\nits\nTitle\nIX policy\n(known as Policy\n6.4).\nIn the formal\ncomplaint,\npetitioner\nwas \"accusedof\nviolating\nCornell\nUniversity's\nPolicy\n6.4 prohibition\nagainst\nSexual\nExploitation\n[and]\nSexual\nAssault\"\n(NY St Cts Elec\nFiling\n[NYSCEF] Doc No. 19 at R-01046).1\nThe formal\ncomplaint\nalso\nadvised\nthat\nCornell\n\"may hold the Respondents accountable\nfor\nviolations\nof Policy\n6.4 and\nother\npolicies\nthat\nare not referenced\nin the Formal Complaint\nbut are learned about from\nevidence,\ntestimony,\nor admissions during\nthe investigation\nand adjudication\nprocess\"\n(NYSCEF\nDoc No. 19 at R-01044, R-01050, R-01056).\nAn evidentiary\nhearing\nthat\nlasted\n12 days was held before\na three-member\nhearing\npanel.\nPetitioner\nactively\nparticipated\nin the hearing.\nHe was represented\nby counsel, who cross-\nexamined numerous witnesses,\nand testified\nin his own behalf.\nThe hearing\npanel\nissued a\ndecision\ndated August\n18, 2025 that,\nin relevant\npart,\nfound that\npetitioner\nwas not responsible\nfor Sexual Assault\nor Sexual Exploitation,\nbut that he was responsible\nfor Attempted\nSexual\n1 Cornell\nrevised\nthe formal complaint\nin January\nand March 2025, however the\naccusations\nagainst\npetitioner\nwere not materially\naltered\n(see NYSCEFDoc No. 19 at R-01050\n- R-01053; R-01056 - R-01059).\nIn the copy of the\ninitial\nformal\ncomplaint\nfiled\nwith the\npetition,\ncomplainant's\nname, the summary of alleged\nmisconduct,\nand the namesof others\naccused of violations\narising\nfrom the incident\nwere redacted\n(see NYSCEFDoc No. 4).\nThe\nrecord,\nwhich\nis sealed pursuant\nto an order on stipulation,\ncontains\nunredacted\ncopies of the\nformal\ncomplaint\nand its\nrevisions\n(see NYSCEFDoc No. 19 at R-01044 - R-01059).\n- 2\n-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n2 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nExploitation.\nPetitioner\nfiled\nan administrative\nappeal\nraising\nseveral\nissues,\nincluding:\n(1)\nthe\ncontention\nthat\nthe hearing\nwas compromised because panel member Savannah Bao was\ndistracted\nduring\nthe hearing,\nincluding\na 45-minute\nperiod when she was participating\nby\nvideoconference\nwhile\ndriving\na car during\nthe testimony\nof a witness\nto petitioner's\nconduct\nduring\nthe\nincident;\n(2) the objection\nthat he had been found responsible\nfor\na violation\nthat he\nhad not been charged with;\nand (3)\nthe contention\nthat\nthe finding\nhe was responsible\nfor\nAttempted\nSexual Exploitation\nwas clearly\nerroneous.\nA three-member\nappeal panel\nissued a\ndecision\ndated January 14, 2026 denying the appeal\nin\nits\nentirety.\nPetitioner\ncommencedthis\nproceeding on March 30, 2026 seeking judgment\nannulling\nthe decision\nfinding\nhim responsible\nfor Attempted\nSexual Exploitation,\nvacating\nall\npenalties\nimposed against\nhim, and expunging\nall\nreferences\nto the underlying\ncharges from his academic record.2\nIn this\nproceeding,\npetitioner\ndoes not contend that\nthe decision\nof the hearing\npanel was not supported\nby substantial\nevidence.\nRather,\nhe argues only\nthat\nCornell\nfailed\nto follow\nrelevant\nlaw and its ownpolicy\nby finding\nhim responsible\nfor\na violation\nthat he was not charged with.3\n2 The petition\nseeks declaratory\njudgment;\nhowever,\npetitioner\ndid not\nfile\nand serve a\nsummons as required\nto commencea hybrid CPLRarticle\n78 proceeding and action\nfor\na\ndeclaratory\njudgment\n(see Matter of Nicholas v Martuscello,\n245 AD3d1055, 1058 [3d Dept\n2026]).\nIn any event,\n\"[a]\ntrial\ncourt maydecline\nto entertain\nan action\nfor\ndeclaratory\njudgment\nwhere other adequate remedies are available,\nsuch as a CPLRarticle\n78 proceeding\nto challenge\nan administrative\ndetermination\"\n(Matter\nof Gable Transp.,\nInc.\nv State\nof NewYork, 29 AD3d\n1125, 1127 [3d Dept 2006]).\nThe request\nfor\na declaratory\njudgment\nhas not been considered\nbecause it was not properly\nmade and is duplicative\nand unnecessary in light\nof the remedy\navailable\nthrough the CPLRarticle\n78 proceeding\n(see\nid.).\n3 The petition\nalso\nalleges\nthat\nthe hearing was compromised by the inattention\nof panel\nmember Bao during\ntestimony\npetitioner\ncontends\nwas critical\nto his defense\n(see NYSCEFDoc\nNo.\n1, petition,\n\u00b6\u00b6 38, 40-42,\n44);\nhowever, petitioner\ndoes not rely\non these allegations\nas a basis\nfor\nchallenging\nthe administrative\ndetermination.\nIn this\nregard,\nit bears emphasizing\nthat no\nrequest\nfor\nrelief\nmade in the petition\nwas based on allegations\nregarding\nBao's conduct during\nthe hearing\n(see petition\n\u00b6\u00b6 46-74),\nnor was any argument seeking\naffirmative\nrelief\nbased on\n-\n3\n-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n3 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n\n--- Page 4 ---\nPetitioner\nwas found responsible\nfor Attempted\nSexual Exploitation,\na charge\nthat was\nnot expressly\nmentioned\nin the formal\ncomplaint\nor any other pre-hearing\nnotice\nthat was\nprovided\nto petitioner.\nAs relevant\nhere,\nSexual Exploitation\nis defined\nas \"intentionally\nengaging in\n. . . [o]bserving\nanother person when that person is nude or engaged in sexual\nactivity\nwithout\nthe knowledge and consent of the person observed\" (NYSCEFDoc No. 31,\nPolicy\n6.4 procedures,\n\u00a7 3.6).\nAttempting\nto Commit Prohibited\nConduct\nis separately\ndefined\nas occurring\nwhen, \"with\nthe intent\nto commit such conduct,\n[a] person engages in conduct\ndirectly\ntending\ntoward completion\nof the prohibited\nconduct\"\n(Policy\n6.4 procedures\n\u00a7 3.2).\nPetitioner\nargues that\nSexual Exploitation\nand Attempted\nSexual Exploitation\nare distinct\noffenses\nbecause they\nare separately\ndefined\nin Policy\n6.4, and argues\nthat\n\"Cornell\ncannot\nsimply add on lesser\nincluded\noffenses\nafter\nthe hearing\nis concluded\" (NYSCEFDoc No. 36,\npetitioner's\nmemin reply,\nat 5).\nCornell\nargues that\nthe elements\nof prohibited\nconduct,\nsuch as\nSexual Exploitation,\nand attempted\nprohibited\nconduct are the same, noting\nthat\nthe\nanalysis\nof\nwhether a person engaged in attempted\nprohibited\nconduct is necessarily\nbased on the elements\nof the underlying\nspecific\nviolation\ncharged.\nIt\nfurther\ncontends\nthat\nthe notice\nprovided\nto\npetitioner\nwas sufficient\nto apprise him of the facts\non which the charges were based and to\nBao's conduct made in petitioner's\nreply memorandum of law or at oral\nargument.\nThus,\nit\nappears\nthat\nthe\nallegations\nmade in the petition\nregarding\nBao's conduct merely provide\ncontext\nby identifying\nall\nissues\nthat were raised\nand decided in petitioner's\nadministrative\nappeal of the\ndecision\nof the hearing\npanel.\nWere this\nissue\nto be considered\non the merits,\nthere\nis no basis\nfor\nfinding\nthat\nthe\nchair\nof the hearing\npanel abused her discretion\nin denying petitioner's\nrequest\nto declare\na mishearing based on Bao's conduct during\nthe hearing\n(see Policy\n6.4\nprocedures\n\u00a7 26.10.1).\nThe time\nthat Bao observed the hearing\nfrom her car amounted to only\n45 minutes out of a 12-day hearing,\nand covered only\n15 pages of the\n1,732-page\ntranscript.\nBao stated\nshe observed the testimony\nthat was given while\nshe was in her car, and she also\nobserved the ensuing\ncross-examination\nof the witness\nby petitioner's\nattorney,\nwhich\nimmediately\nfollowed\nand recapped much of the direct\ntestimony.\nFinally,\nthe decision\nof the\nthree-member hearing\npanel was unanimous.\n- 4\n-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n4 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n\n--- Page 5 ---\npermit\nhim to present\na defense.\nFinally,\nit\nalso\nargues that\npetitioner\nwas informed from the\nbeginning of the process\nthat he could be held accountable\nfor\nviolations\nnot referred\nto in the\nformal\ncomplaint,\nbut that maybe later\nidentified\nduring\nthe\ninvestigation\nand adjudication\nprocess.\nIt\nis thus necessary\nto consider\nthe extent of notice\nrequired\nto be provided\nto students\naccused of violating\nPolicy\n6.4.\nEducation Law article\n129-B, commonly known as the Enough\nis Enough Law, was enacted\nin 2015 to \"require\nall\ncolleges\nand universities\nin the State of New\nYork to implement uniform\nprevention\nand response\npolicies\nand procedures\nrelating\nto sexual\nassault,\ndomestic violence,\ndating\nviolence,\nand stalking\"\n(Matter\nof Jacobson v Blaise,\n157\nAD3d1072, 1074 [3d Dept 2018]\n[internal\nquotation\nmarks, ellipsis,\nand citation\nomitted]).\nAs\nrelevant\nhere,\nthe law provides\nstandards\nfor\nthe minimum process\nto be afforded\na student\naccused of \"sexual\nassault,\ndomestic violence,\ndating\nviolence,\nstalking,\nor sexual\nactivity\nthat\nmay otherwise\nviolate\nthe\ninstitution's\ncode of conduct\"\n(Education\nLaw \u00a7 6444 [5]\n[b],\n[c]\n[emphasis\nadded]).\nThese requirements\ninclude\nbeing provided with\n(1) \"notice\n. . . describing\nthe date,\ntime,\nlocation\nand factual\nallegations\nconcerning\nthe\nviolation,\na reference\nto the\nspecific\ncode of conduct provisions\nalleged\nto have been violated,\nand possible\nsanctions\"\n(Education\nLaw \u00a7 6444 [5]\n[b]\n[i]);\nand (2) written\nor electronic\nnotice\n\"of the\nspecific\nrule,\nrules\nor laws alleged\nto have been violated\nand in what manner\" (Education\nLaw \u00a7 6444 [5]\n[c]\n[vii]).4\nBy its\nterms, Education Law \u00a7 6444 (5)\nspecifies\nthe notice\nrequired\nto be provided\nonly\nwhen a student\nis accused,\nas relevant\nhere,\nof sexual\nassault\nor sexual\nactivity\nthat may\notherwise\nviolate\nthe\ninstitution's\ncode of conduct.\nRespondent satisfied\nthis\nrequirement\nby\n4 A list\nof possible\nsanctions\nis provided\nwithin\nPolicy\n6.4\n(see Policy\n6.4 procedures\n\u00a7\n26.13).\n-5-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n5 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n\n--- Page 6 ---\nproviding\npetitioner\nwritten\nnotice\nin the formal\ncomplaint\nthat he was accused of Sexual\nAssault.\nThe formal\ncomplaint\nalso\nreferred\nto Policy\n6.4's\nprohibition\nagainst\nSexual\nExploitation,\nan offense\nwhich\nis not included\nin those specifically\nenumerated in Education Law\n\u00a7 6444 (5).\nFor purposes of the Enough is Enough Law, \"sexual\nactivity\"\nis defined\nas having\n\"the same meaning as 'sexual\nact'\nand 'sexual\ncontact'\nas provided\nin 18 USC2246 (2) and 18\nUSC2246 (3)\"\n(Education\nLaw \u00a7 6439 [10]).\nIn turn,\n\"sexual\nact\"\nand \"sexual\ncontact\"\nare\ndefined\nas a number of acts\nthat\nrequire\nphysical\ncontact\n(see\n18 USC2246 [2],\n[3]).\nThe\noffense\nof Sexual Exploitation\ndoes not\nfall\nwithin\nthe statutory\ndefinition\nof sexual\nactivity\nbecause the elements\nthereof\ndo not include\nany of the activities\nlisted\nin\n18 USC2246 (2) and\n(3)\nthat\nrequire\nphysical\ncontact,\nand thus does not\nfall\nwithin\nthe scope of \"sexual\nactivity\nthat\nmayotherwise\nviolate\nthe\ninstitution's\ncode of conduct.\"\nAccordingly,\nneither\nEducation Law \u00a7\n6444 (5)\n(b)\n(i)\nnor \u00a7 6444 (5)\n(c)\n(vii)\nrequire\nthat\npetitioner\nhave been provided with notice\nthat\nhe could be found responsible\nfor Sexual Exploitation\nor Attempted\nSexual Exploitation.\nPolicy\n6.4 does not expressly\nrequire\nthat an accused student be notified\nof the specific\ncode of conduct provisions,\nor rule\nor law,\nalleged\nto have been violated.\nRather,\nit requires\nthat\nan accused student be provided with notice\nof the \"alleged\nprohibited\nconduct and its\ndate,\ntime,\nand location,\nto the extent known,\"\nand the\n\"factual\nallegations\npertaining\nto the prohibited\nconduct\"\n(Policy\n6.4 procedures\n\u00a7 18).\nIt\nfurther\nprovides\nthat when a case is referred\nfor\na\nhearing,\nthe notice\nof hearing\nmust apprise an accused student of \"the\ncharges\nat issue\"\n(Policy\n6.4 procedures\n\u00a7 26.4).\nThe formal\ncomplaint\nidentified\nthe complainant,\nprovided\nthe\ndates\nand location\nof the\nincident,\nset forth\na summary of alleged\nmisconduct\nconsisting\nof approximately\ntwo pages that\nidentified\nthe other students\naccused of violations\narising\nfrom the\nincident,\nadvised\npetitioner\n- 6\n-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n6 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n\n--- Page 7 ---\nthat he was accused of violating\nthe prohibitions\nagainst\nSexual Assault\nand Sexual Exploitation,\nand set forth\nthe specific\nfacts\napplicable\nto the charges made against\npetitioner\n(NYSCEFDoc\nNo. 19 at R-01044 - R-01059).\nAccordingly,\nthe formal\ncomplaint\nprovided\npetitioner\nwith\nnotice\nadequate\nto comply with Policy\n6.4 and to satisfy\ndue process\n(see Matter\nof Jacobson v\nBlaise,\n157 AD3dat 1075; NewYork State Education Department, Complying\nwith Education\nLaw Article\n129-B at 26 [The notice\nprovided\n\"should\nbe specific\nenough to allow\na reasonable\nperson to present\na defense,\npursuant\nto institutional\npolicy,\nbut need not be so long and detailed\nthat\nit negatively\nimpacts\nthe studentconduct\nprocess\"]).5\nPetitioner's\nargument that\nfinding\nhim responsible\nfor Attempted\nSexual Exploitation\nis\narbitrary\nand capricious\nbecause the formal\ncomplaint\ndid not specifically\nprovide\nnotice\nthat he\nwas accused of violating\nthat\nsection\nof Policy\n6.4\nis also unavailing\nfor the following\nadditional\nreasons.\nFirst,\npetitioner\nwas advised\nthat he could be held accountable\nfor\nviolations\nnot\nreferred\nto in the formal\ncomplaint\nthat maybe identified\nduring\nthe\ninvestigation\nand\nadjudication\nprocess.\nThe Department of Education has specifically\nnoted that:\n\"Nothing\nin the paragraph [Education\nLaw \u00a7 6444 (5)\n(b)]\nprohibits\nan institution\nfrom holding\nstudents\naccountable\nfor\nviolations\nthat\nare not referenced\nin the\ninitial\ncharge\nletter\nbut are learned\nabout from evidence,\ntestimony,\nor admission\nat a hearing\nor during\nthe\ninvestigatory\nprocess,\nconsistent\nwith\ninstitution\npolicies\nand due process, where applicable\"\n(New York State Education Department,\nComplying\nwith Education Law Article\n129-B at 26).\nSecond, as noted by Cornell,\nAttempted\nSexual Exploitation\nadds no elements\nto Sexual\nExploitation.\nAccordingly,\nthe formal\ncomplaint\nprovided\npetitioner\nwith notice\nof alleged\nfacts\n5 TheNewYork State Education Department guidance document entitled\n\"Complying\nwith Education Law Article\n129-B,\"\nwhich was cited\nby the Appellate\nDivision,\nThird\nDepartment,\nin Matter of Jacobson v Blaise\n(157 AD3dat 1074), maybe found at\nhttps://www.nysed.gov/sites/default/files/article-129-b-guidance.pdf\n(last\naccessed September\n23, 2026).\n- 7\n-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n7 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n\n--- Page 8 ---\nrelevant\nto his conduct to support\nthe charge\nfor Attempted\nSexual Exploitation.\nThe elements\nof Attempted\nSexual Exploitation\n- the\nintent\nto commit Sexual Exploitation\nand affirmative\nacts\ntending\ntoward\nits completion - were necessarily\nat issue\nin the evidentiary\nhearing,\nand\npetitioner\nhad the opportunity\nto present\nrelevant\nevidence,\narguments,\nand defenses.\nSince\nthe\nelements\nof prohibited\nconduct include\nthe elements\nof attempted\nprohibited\nconduct the analysis\nof whether a person attempted\nprohibited\nconduct\nis necessarily\nbased on the elements\nof the\nunderlying\nspecific\nviolation\ncharged.\nThis\nis the sameanalysis\nemployed\nin considering\nlesser\nincluded\ncharges\nfor\ncriminal\ndefendants,\na concept\nthat\npetitioner\nalluded\nto in arguments that\ncompare the attempt\ncharge\nto a \"lesser\nincluded\noffense\"\n(petitioner's\nmemin reply\nat 5,\n9).\nIn\nthe criminal\ncontext,\na lesser\nincluded\noffense\nis defined\nas follows:\n\"When it\nis impossible\nto commit a particular\ncrime without\nconcomitantly\ncommitting,\nby the same conduct,\nanother\noffense\nof lesser\ngrade or degree,\nthe\nlatter\nis, with respect\nto the former,\na 'lesser\nincluded\noffense.'\nIn any case in\nwhich\nit\nis legally\npossible\nto attempt\nto commit a crime,\nan attempt\nto commit\nsuch crime constitutes\na lesser\nincluded\noffense\nwith\nrespect\nthereto\"\n(CPL 1.20\n[37]\n[emphasis\nadded]).\nThus,\nthe hearing\npanel's\ndecision\nfinding\npetitioner\nresponsible\nfor Attempted\nSexual\nExploitation\nis analogous to the imposition\nagainst\na criminal\ndefendant\nof a charge\nfor\nthe\nlesser\nincluded\noffense\nof attempting\nto commit the crime with which\nthe defendant\nwas indicted.\nIf a\ncriminal\ndefendant,\nwhose liberty\ninterests\nare at stake, maybe convicted\nof a lesser\nincluded\noffense\nwith which he or she was not specifically\nindicted\n- including\nan attempt\nto commit the\ngreater\ncount - then the finding\nthat\npetitioner\nwas responsible\nfor Attempted\nSexual\nExploitation\ncannot be considered\nto have been arbitrary\nand capricious.\nBased on the foregoing,\nthe petition\nis dismissed.\nThis\ndecision\nconstitutes\nthe order and judgment\nof the court.\nThe filing\nof this\ndecision,\norder,\nand judgment,\nor the\ntransmittal\nof copies\nhereof,\nby the court\nshall\nnot constitute\nnotice\nof\n- 8\n-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n8 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n\n--- Page 9 ---\nentry\n(see\ne.g. CPLR2221 [d]\n[3];\n5513).\nThe prevailing\nparty\nshall\nserve notice\nof entry hereof\nas required\nby CPLR2220 (b) and Uniform\nRules for\nTrial\nCourts\n(22 NYCRR)\u00a7 202.5-b\n(h)\n(2).\nDated:\nSeptember 23, 2026\nCortland,\nNewYork\n64/--\na\nD\n2\n.23\nENTER\nHON.MARKG. MASLER\nSupreme Court Justice\n- 9\n-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n9 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n\n--- Page 10 ---\nThe following\ndocuments filed\nwith the Clerk of the County of Tompkins via the New\nYork State\nCourts\nElectronic\nFiling\nSystem were considered\nherein\n(see CPLR2219 [a]):\nDocument Numbers 1-8;\n10; 14-36.\n-\n10\n-\nCI2026-21456\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 10:55 AM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 37\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026\n10 of 10\nCI2026-21548\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2026 03:34 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 39\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2026","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/504/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/504"}