{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT Redacted - Memorandum of Law in Opposition","alternateName":"NYSCEF-case-4c779433507a-000048.pdf","caption":"NYSCEF document #48 | Filed: 2026-09-30 | Filed by: Court User Filed:  Received: | Docket status: Processed Confirmation Notice | Case: Jane Doe v. Cornell Univeristy (Tompkins County) | Source: NYSCEF","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/513/raw","datePublished":"2026-10-19T12:21:06+00:00","description":"NYSCEF document #48 | Filed: 2026-09-30 | Filed by: Court User Filed:  Received: | Docket status: Processed Confirmation Notice | Case: Jane Doe v. Cornell Univeristy (Tompkins County) | Source: NYSCEF","encodingFormat":"application/pdf","identifier":"513","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/513/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/513/index.md"},"name":"OTHER COURT FILED DOCUMENT Redacted - Memorandum of Law in Opposition","ocrStatus":"ready","ocrText":"--- Page 1 ---\nSTATEOFNEWYORK\nSUPREMECOURT:TOMPKINSCOUNTY\nIn the Matter of the Application\nof\nJOHNDOE,\nPetitioner,\nFORAJUDGMENTPURSUANTTOARTICLE 78\nANDSECTION3001 OFTHECPLR\nIndex No. EF2026-0292\n-AGAINST-\nCORNELLUNIVERSITY,\nRespondent.\nRESPONDENT'SMEMORANDUM\nOFLAW\nIN OPPOSITIONTOVERIFIEDPETITION\nADAMG. PENCE\nTHOMASHOEHNER\nRYANT. NELSON\nAttorneys\nfor Respondent\nOffice\nand Post Office\nAddress\nCornell\nUniversity\n118 Sage Place\nIthaca, NY 14850\n(607) 255-5124\nCI2026-22102\nIndex # : EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n1 of 30\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nTABLEOFCONTENTS\nTABLEOFAUTHORITIES ..........................................................................................................\nii\nSTATEMENTOFFACTS.............................................................................................................\n1\nI.\nTHEFORMALCOMPLAINTINITIATEs ANINVESTIGATION....................................................\n2\nII.\nTHEINVESTIGATIONINVOLVING DOE..................................................................................\n3\nIII.\nTHECONSOLIDATED\nHEARING............................................................................................\n5\nIV. THEHEARINGPANELDECISION.........................................................................................\n11\nV.\nDOE'S APPEAL...................................................................................................................\n12\nVI. DOECOMMENCES\nTHIs PROCEEDING\n................................................................................\n13\nARGUMENT................................................................................................................................\n13\nI.\nCORNELL'SCONDUCTPROCEEDINGS\nANDDETERMINATIONS\nAREENTITLEDTo\nDEFERENCEUNDERARTICLE 78........................................................................................\n13\nII.\nDOE'S COMPLAINTsA2our LACKOFNOTICEAREMERITLEss ........................................\n15\nA.\nCornell\nSubstantially\nComplied With\nIts Procedures ...................................................\n15\nB.\nThe Elements of Sexual\nExploitation\nand Attempting\nSexual Exploitation\nAre the Same................................................................................................................\n16\nC.\nDoe WasNot Blindsided\nor\nPrejudiced........................................................................\n18\nD.\nDoe Cites NoApplicable\nNewYork\nAuthority............................................................\n19\nIII.\nTHEHEARINGCHAIR'S DECISIONNOTTODECLAREAMISHEARINGWASNOT\nARBITRARYANDCAPRICIOUS............................................................................................\n21\nCONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................\n23\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n2 of 30\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nTABLEOFAUTHORITIES\nPage(s)\nCases\nCDEElec.,\nInc.\nv. Rivera,\n124 A.D.3d\n1178 (3d Dep't 2015)\n..........................................................................................14\nCustom Topsoil,\nInc.\nv. City of Buffalo,\n63 A.D.3d\n1511 (4th\nDep't 2009)\n...........................................................................................13\nDoe v. Brandeis\nUniv.\n177 F. Supp. 3d 561 (D. Mass. 2016)\n.....................................................................................19\nDoe v. Cornell\nUniv.,\n70 N.Y.S.3d\n750 (Sup.\nCt. Tompkins\nCnty.\n2017)\n.................................................................22\nDoe v. Cornell\nUniv.,\n163 A.D.3d\n1243 (3d Dep't 2018)\n....................................................................................13,\n22\nDoe v.\nTr. of Dartmouth\nColl.,\n615 F. Supp. 3d 47 (D.N.H.\n2022)\n..........................................................................................19\nDoe v. Skidmore\nColl.,\n152 A.D.3d\n932 (3d Dep't 2017)\n................................................................................14,\n16, 20\nDoe v.\nW. NewEngland\nUniv.,\n228 F. Supp.\n3d. 154 (D. Mass. 2016)\n....................................................................................19\nDoe 1 v. Syracuse Univ.,\n188 A.D.3d\n1570 (4th\nDep't 2020)\n.........................................................................................22\nEbert\nv.\nYeshiva\nUniv.,\n780 N.Y.S.2d\n283 (Sup.\nCt. N.Y.\nCnty.\n2004)\n.......................................................................20\nFellheimer\nv. Middlebury\nColl.,\n869 F. Supp. 238 (D. Vt.\n1994)\n...............................................................................................2O\nHymanv. Cornell\nUniv.,\n82 A.D.3d\n1309 (3d Dep't 2011)\n......................................................................................13,\n22\nKickertz\nv. NewYork Univ.,\n25 N.Y.3d\n942 (2015)\n.............................................................................................................13\nNicholas\nv. Martuscello,\n245 A.D.3d\n1055 (3d Dep't 2026)\n..........................................................................................13\nii\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n3 of 30\n\n--- Page 4 ---\nRensselaer Soc. of Eng'rs.\nv. Rensselaer Polytechnic\nInst.,\n260 A.D.2d 992 (3d Dep't\n1999)\n............................................................................................14\nSutherland\nv. Glennon,\n221 A.D.2d\n893 (3d Dep't\n1995)\n............................................................................................13\nTedeschi\nv. Wagner Coll.,\n49 N.Y.2d\n652 (1980)\n.............................................................................................................13\nVanHouten\nv. Mount St. Mary Coll.,\n137 A.D.3d\n1293 (2d Dep't 2016)\n..........................................................................................13\nZartoshti\nv. Columbia\nUniv.,\n79 A.D.3d 470 (2010)\n.......................................................................................................14,\n19\nOther Authorities\nCPLR103.......................................................................................................................................13\niii\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n4 of 30\n\n--- Page 5 ---\nOnOctober\n19, 2024, Jane Roe attended\na party\nat the Chi Phi Fraternity.\nRoe would\nlater\nallege\nshe was the victim\nof a ketamine and alcohol-fueled\nsexual\nassault\ninvolving\nmultiple\nfraternity\nmembers.\nThat night,\nat 1:42 AM, one of these members sent\na group Snapchat\nindicating\nthere was \"free\npussy\" in a bedroom called\nthe \"Alumni\"\nroom. What followed was a\nseries\nof exchanges (which included\na picture\nof Roe) that were recorded\nand later provided\nanonymously\nto the\nuniversity.\nThis\nSnapchat,\nwhich\nis an addendumto this\nbrief,\nbecamea key\nexhibit\nin the\nresulting\nstudent conduct matter.\nDoe participated\nin this exchange with\nhis\nfraternity\nbrothers,\nresponding\nto the\n\"free\npussy\" message at 2:20 AM, implying\nthat\nhis\nfriend,\nwent to the room earlier\nand was now\nunavailable\n(\"\nwent 7 min ago and is not afk sooooo\").\nHeresponded again\nat 2:29 AM,\nostensibly\nconfirming\nthe\n\"free\npussy\" message was real\n(\"the\nalumni\nshit\nis not a bit.\nfirst\nhand\npov not a bit\").\nDoe also\nentered the Alumni room around the sametime he sent these messages.\nDoe was subsequently\ncharged with Sexual Exploitation\nand Sexual Assault\nunder\nCornell's\npolicies.\nAfter\na lengthy\ninvestigation\nand hearing,\nwhere he presented\nrobust\ndefenses, he was found responsible\nonly\nfor Attempting\nSexual Exploitation.\nRather than\naccepting\nthe Hearing Panel's\nfair\nand nuanced determination,\nDoe has filed\nthis\nproceeding,\nclaiming\nCornell\nshould\nhave reminded him he could be found responsible\nfor\nattempted\nconduct\nand complaining\nthat\na panelist\nmaynot have been paying\ncareful\nattention\nfor one hour during\n12 days of hearings.\nSimply\nput,\nthere\nis no basis under the law to grant Doe's Petition.\nSTATEMENTOFFACTS\nOnNovember 14, 2024, Roe met with\nthe Office\nof Institutional\nEquity and Title\nIX\n(\"OIETIX\"),\nwhich\nis tasked with enforcing\nCornell\nPolicy\n6.4,\n\"Prohibited\nBias,\n1\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n5 of 30\n\n--- Page 6 ---\nDiscrimination,\nHarassment, and Sexual and Related\nMisconduct\"\n(\"Policy\n6.4\").\nAffirmation\nof Lauren Branchini\n(\"Branchini\nAff.\")\n\u00b6\u00b6 6-8;\nR50.1\nI.\nTHEFORMALCOMPLAINTINITIATES ANINVESTIGATION\nOnNovember 22, 2024,\nCornell's\nTitle\nIX Coordinator\n(consulting\nwith Roe)\ncommenceda Formal Complaint.\nBranchini\nAff.\n\u00b6 12; R1042-47.\nThe Complaint named seven\nrespondents,\nincluding\nDoe, all\nof whomwere Chi Phi members.\nId.;\nR61.\nUnder Section\n18 of the Procedures,\nat the issuance of the Formal Complaint,\nthe\nTitle\nIX\nCoordinator\nnotifies\nthe complainant\nand respondent(s)\nthe investigation\nis commencing and\nprovides\na copy of the Formal Complaint.\nBranchini\nAff.,\nEx. 2 at 20.\nThe \"notice\"\nis to\nprovide\nthe parties\nwith \"the\nalleged\nprohibited\nconduct and its\ndate,\ntime,\nand location,\nto the\nextent known\" and \"the\nfactual\nallegations\npertaining\nto the prohibited\nconduct.\"\nId.\nAll\nrespondents\nreceived\na copy of the Formal Complaint,\nwhich included\nSection\n3,\nentitled\nAlleged Misconduct,\nand part\n(g)\noutlined\nthe\nallegations\nrelated\nto Doe:\nviolating\nCornell\nUniversity's\nPolicy\n6.4\nprohibition\nagainst\nSexual\nExploitation.\nSpecifically,\nit\nis alleged\nthat\nat the above time and place,\n[Doe]\nintentionally\nviewed\nthe\nComplainant\nin\na\nstate\nof\nundress\nwithout\nher\npermission.\nviolating\nComell\nUniversity's\nPolicy\n6.4\nprohibition\nagainst\nSexual Assault.\nSpecifically,\nit\nis alleged\nthat\nat the above time\nand place,\n[Doe]\ntouched\nhis\nnose to the Complainant's\nnaked torso\nand inhaled\na powered substance\noff her\nbody without\naffirmative\nconsent,\nincluding\nlack of affirmative\nconsent\ndue to\nincapacitation.\nR1046.2\nAlong with the above allegations,\nDoe was specifically\nwarned that\n\"[t]he\nUniversity\nmayhold the Respondents accountable\nfor\nviolations\nof Policy\n6.4 and other\npolicies\nthat\nare not\nI The record for\nthis\nproceeding\nhas already been filed.\nNYSCEFDoc. Nos.\n16-27.\n2 The Formal Complaint\nasserted\nthe sameallegations\nagainst\nanother respondent,\na fraternity\nmemberwho\ncame into\nthe Alumni roomwith Doe.\nSee R1046, R1058.\n2\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n6 of 30\n\n--- Page 7 ---\nreferenced\nin the Formal Complaint\nbut are leamed about from evidence,\ntestimony,\nor\nadmissions\nduring\nthe investigation\nand adjudication\nprocess.\"\nR1044 (emphasis added).\nAs the investigation\ncontinued,\nthe Formal Complaint was updated on January 14, 2025\nand on March 12, 2025.\nBranchini\nAff.\n\u00b6 20; R1048-59.\nThe allegations\nagainst Doe remained\nsubstantively\nthe same. R1052, R1058.\nBoth updated Complaints\nincluded\nthe samewarning\nto\nDoe that he could be found responsible\nfor\nother prohibited\nconduct.\nR1044, R1050, R1056.\nII.\nTHEINVESTIGATIONINVOLVINGDOE\nAfter\nreceiving\nthe Formal Complaint, Doe fully\nparticipated\nin the\nInvestigation\nand had\nevery\nopportunity\nto rebut\nthe\nallegations\nasserted\nagainst\nhim.\nDoe's First\nInterview\nOnDecember 16, 2024,\nbefore\na video of the\nfull\nSnapchat exchange was provided\nto the\nuniversity,\nDoe was interviewed\nby a Title\nIX Investigator.\nR480-503.\nIn this\ninterview,\nhe\nexplained\nhe did not see Roe naked because she pulled\na blanket\nover herself\nand explained\nhe\ndid not do drugs off\nher.\nR481, R484.\nRelevant here,\nhe also\nadmitted\nto receiving\na message\nabout\n\"free\npussy in alumni\"\nbut claimed he did not know what\nit meant.\nR483. Doe asserted\nhe\nand\ndecided\nto go to the room because they were unsure if the message was a joke or what\nwas going on in the room (and because Doe was hoping to get a new vape there).\nId.\nThe Investigator\nasked Doe questions\nabout the Snapchat and what was going through his\nmind then and, most important,\nwhy after\nreading\nthe message he went to the Alumni room.\nR490. Doe specifically\naddressed\nhis\nintent:\n\"by no meanswere we going there\nto get free pussy\nin alumni.\nThat was not our intentions\nat\nall. Wewere just\nchecking out to see if everything\nwas\nokay, and it was.\nEverybody\nin there\nseemed fine.\"\nR490-91.\n3\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n7 of 30\n\n--- Page 8 ---\nDoe also\nsubmitted\nevidence,\nincluding\na timeline\nfrom that\nevening;\nan\nAcknowledgement of Understanding\nof Doe's Involvement\nfrom\nproviding\na similar\naccount\nof events;\nand a screenshot ofMs phone log documenting\na call with Doe leading\nup to when\nthe two met and discussed\nthe Snapchat.\nR1264-69.\nIn this\ntimeline,\nDoe included\na fulsome\ndiscussion\ndocumenting\nthe 10-15 minutes before he entered\nthe Alumni room: Doe claimed he\n\"didn't\nknow if\nit was a joke and didn't\nknow if there was a girl\nin there\nor whether someone was\nin danger or not or [a]\npractical\njoke.\"\nR1264-65.\nHe reiterated\nthat he and\nwent to the\nAlumni room to check on his\nfriend,\nand to vape.\nId.\nwho at the time was cooperating\nwith Doe (R1268),\nalso provided\na timeline\nwith\nsimilar\ninformation\nabout what led them to the\nroom.\nR1234-35.\nAbout six weeks after\nDoe's and\ns initial\ninterviews,\nCornell\nreceived\nfrom an\nanonymoussource the video documenting\nthe\nentire\nSnapchat.\nBranchini\nAff.\n\u00b6 28; R1515.\nwould\nlater amendhis\ntimeline,\nattempting\nto explain why he responded to a question\n\"Shop\nstill\nopen?\" with \"Yeah\"\nand \"LFG,\"\nif there\nreally\nwas no sexual\nactivity\ntaking\nplace\nin the Alumni\nroom when they were there.\nR1456-58.\nclaimed he was adding to the \"crude\njokes\nbeing\nshared in the\nchat.\"\nId.\nMeanwhile,\nDoe was going to need to explain\nhis messages on the exchange.\nDoe's Second Interview\nOnFebruary 24, 2025, Doe was interviewed\nagain.\nR504-520.\nThe Investigator\nwalked\nthrough his proffered\ntimeline\nof events,\ncomparing\nthe timeline\nwith the time stamps from the\nSnapchat,\nfocusing\non the events leading\nup to Doe entering\nthe room.\nR505-19.\nDoe claimed\nhe got a call\nfrom\nat 2:23 AMand did not go down to the Alumni room until\n2:35\n(after\nhis\npov text).\nR509. He claimed that\n\"I went down there\nto see if everything\nwas okay and if\nI\n4\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n8 of 30\n\n--- Page 9 ---\ncould\nhit\na vape.\"\nId.\nThe Interviewer\nwalked Doe through the Snapchat,\ngiving\nhim every\nopportunity\nto explain\nhis two responses\nto the \"free\npussy\" message. R513-17.\nDoe admitted\nhis\nfirst\nmessage, claiming\nthat\n\"went 7 min ago and is not afk soooo,\"\nwas meant to convey\nthat\nwent to the Alumni room and was \"not on his phone\"\n(the\n\"not\"\nwas a mistake,\nand\n\"afk\"\nmeant \"away from keyboard\").\nR513-14.\nDoe was also\ngiven\nan opportunity\nto explain\nhis second message \"the alumni\nshit\nis not a bit.\nFirsthand\npov not a bit.\"\nR515-16.\nDoe said he\ndid not rememberbut admitted\nhe had talked\nto someone about what was happening in the room\nbefore\nentering\nand understood the person to say sexual\nactivity\nwas ongoing:\nI wasn't\nin\nthe room yet.\nI don't\nreally\nremember,\nI just\nknow that\nI talked\nto\nsomeone about\nit before\nentering\n[the]\nroom. They said from their\npoint\nof view,\nthat's\nwhat they\nsaw.\nI was not\nin\nthe room at that\npoint.\nThat's\npart\nof the\nreason why I wanted to go down and check,\ncause they\nsaid from their\npoint\nof\nview\nit wasn't a joke.\nSo, I wanted to see.\nR515-16 (emphasis added).\nHL\nTHECONSOLIDATEDHEARING\nOnApril\n14, 2025,\nthe\nInvestigator\nissued a Hearing Notice and Investigative\nReport.\nR41-113.\nThe Hearing Notice included\ncharges and a brief\nsummary of alleged\nprohibited\nconduct for each respondent.\nR42-44.\nFor Doe, the following\nwas included:\n1.\nRespondent\n[Doe]\nis\naccused of\nviolating\nCornell\nUniversity's\nPolicy\n6.4\nprohibition\nagainst\nSexual\nExploitation.\nSpecifically,\nit\nis\nalleged\nthat\non the\nabove-described\ndate,\ntime,\nand location,\nRespondent [Doe]\nintentionally\nviewed\nthe Complainant\nin a state of undress without\nher permission.\n2.\nRespondent\n[Doe]\nis\naccused of\nviolating\nCornell\nUniversity's\nPolicy\n6.4\nprohibition\nagainst\nSexual Assault\n(Sexual\nContact).\nSpecifically,\nit\nis alleged\nthat\nRespondent [Doe]\ntouched his nose to the Complainant's\nnaked torso\nand inhaled\na powdered substance\noff her body without\nher affirmative\nconsent,\nincluding\nlack\nof affirmative\nconsent due to incapacitation.\nR44 (emphasis added).\n5\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n9 of 30\n\n--- Page 10 ---\nOnApril\n23, 2025, Doe submitted\nan Opening Statement\nin which he claimed he entered\nthe Alumni room to find\nand vape.\nR1628. He specifically\nargued that he lacked\nthe\nrequisite\nintent\nto commit Sexual Exploitation:\n\"That\nsaid,\nentering\na room, even if [Roe] was\nnot fully\ndressed,\nin and of itself\ndoes not satisfy\nthe elements\nof the charges\nagainst meunless\nit\nis alleged\nthat\nI somehowknew prior\nto entering\nshe was undressed and I intentionally\nviewed\nher, two elements\nthat\nare neither\nalleged\n[n]or\nsupported\non the record.\"\nR1630.\nCornell\nheld a consolidated\nhearing\nin May2025 over 12 days.\nR1638.\nRoe's Testimony\nand Cross-Examination\nby Doe's Attorney\nDuring\nthe\nhearing,\nRoe testified\nthat Doe and\nwere like\n\"voyeurs\"\nbecause \"[t]hey\nwere just\nlooming.\"\nR1691.\nDoe's attorney\nthen asked Roe numerous questions\nthat\nspanned\ntwo days and over 40 pages of hearing\ntranscript.\nR1870-1912.\nAmongother\nsubjects,\nhis\nattorney\nasked Roe for her specific\nmemories of Doe while\nhe was in the room.\nId.\nRoe\nadmitted\nshe was under a sheet at times and that\nshe had no specific\nrecollection\nof whether Doe\nsaw her naked when she stood up, or if he snorted ketamine off\nher.\nId.\nReferring\nto Doe and\nshe said\n\"I know they were there.\nAnd they were there\nfor\na while from myrecollection\nof\nit.\nAnd I think\nanything\nis possible.\nAnd if they\ndidn't\ndo ketamine,\nthey could have done\nsomething worse to me, but they were there\nfor\nthe amount of time\nthat\nI believe\nthey were\nthere.\"\nR1904-05.\nNotably,\nin response\nto probing\nquestions\nabout whether Roe thought\ndifferently\nabout\nDoe, if he did not partake\nin the ketamine,\nRoe replied\n\"[Doe]\nread in a group chat about free\npussy upstairs\nand decided\nthat he wanted to participate\nin whatever was going on.\nI don't\nview\nhim as any better\nof a man, no.\"\nR1892.\n6\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n10 of 30\n\n--- Page 11 ---\nDoe's Testimony\nDoe testified\nabout receiving\nthe Snapchats and going to the Alumni room.\nR2804-2828.\nHe testified\nwhat he was thinking\nwhen he received\n\"free\npussy\" and the follow-up\n\"crazy\nwork\"\nmessage, explaining\nhe thought\nit meant the sender wasn't\nsure\nit was true\n(and that\nit would be\ncrazy\nif\nit were).\nId.;\nR2857.\nDoe claimed both that he was somewhatconcerned about\nbeing\nin the Alumni room and, simultaneously,\nthat he thought\n\"free\npussy\" was fake.\nR2816-2823.\nDoe compared his\nprior\ntimeline\nto the timestamps of the Snapchats\nto establish\nwhere he\nwas when he received\nthe \"free\npussy\" message and where he was when he responded with each\nmessage. R2814-17.\nDoe testified\nhe sent\nthe\nfirst\nmessage at 2:20 AMafter\nhad gone to the\nAlumni room; he explained\nhe went into\nthe Alumni room at 2:30 AM, directly\nafter\nsending\nthe\nsecond POVmessage at 2:29 AM. R2816-23, R2858.\nDoe admitted\nhe spoke to someone who\nclaimed to come from the room who confirmed\nthere was a \"girl\nin there\nwith\nthree\nother dudes,\"\nbut now claimed he was given no indication\nthere was sexual\nactivity\ngoing on inside.\nR2823-4,\nR2827-31.\nHe later\nanswered questions\nas to why he did not include\nin his proffered\ntimeline\nthe\nabove conversation,\nclaiming\nhe did not rememberand the \"Snapchat kind of opened myeyes to\nwhat happened.\"\nR2861.\nDoe recounted\nhis journey\nto the Alumni room and what he was\nthinking\nduring\nthat\ntime.\nR2823-27.\nHe claimed he knocked out of \"commoncourtesy\n...\nthere\nwas a female in the room with a couple\nother dudes\"\nbut,\nsomehow, not because of potential\nsexual\nactivity.\nR2831.\nDoe recounted\nhis memories of entering\nthe room, seeing Roe and others on the bed, and\nclaimed he did not see any evidence\nof sexual\nactivity\n(despite\nall of them being on the bed\ntogether\nin somelevel\nof undress)\nand claimed to have seen no drug use.\nR2838-39.\nHe asserted\nthe person answering the door was clothed\nand already\nhad a vape in his hand (the person\n7\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n11 of 30\n\n--- Page 12 ---\ntestified\notherwise)\nand that Roe was under a blanket.\nR2832-33.\nPanelist\nBao asked Doe for\nfurther\ndetails\nabout\nhis entering\nthe room.\nR2887-88.\nFinally,\nDoe testified\nas to why his attorney\nasked\nto sign a statement\nof cooperation,\nwhich\nseveral\npeople felt\nwas to ensure the two kept the same story\nabout\ntheir\ntrip\nto the Alumni\nroom.\nR2876-77.\nOther Relevant Hearing Testimony\nNumerous witnesses\ntestified\nregarding\nfacts\nrelated\nto Doe's\nintent\ngoing into\nthe\nAlumni room, and Doe's attorney\nwas allowed\nto cross-examine\nall of them.\none of the occupants\nof the Alumni room, testified\nthat Doe and\ncameto the door\nand \"peeked\"\nin the room and then just\n\"walked\nin.\"\nR2002-03.\nthought\nhe was undressed at\nthe time and had no memory of Doe asking\nfor\na vape.\nR2004-05, R2077.\nNotably,\nrecalled\neither\nDoe or\nasking\nto take ketamine off Roe's chest and at least\none of them doing so.\nR2007-11.\nDoe's attorney\ncross-examined\nasking him questions\nrelated\nto Doe's intent\nentering\nthe room, including\nasking whether anyone in the room had any notification\nother than\nthe Snapchats that Roe was naked, and asked about her state of dress before\nand after\nbeing\ncovered with\nthe\nsheets.\nR2080-81.\nDoe's attorney\nfurther\nasked\nwhat someone standing\nat\nthe door,\nprior\nto entering\nthe room, would have seen -\ni.e.,\nwould Doe have seen Roe naked or\nin the bed.\nR2082.\nAnother witness,\ntestified\nthat he understood Doe's message \"the alumni\nshit\nis not a\nbit.\nfirsthand\npov,\nnot a bit\"\nto meanDoe thought\nthe \"free\npussy\" message was real.\nR2321-23.\nDoe's attorney\nthen cross-examined\nto ascertain\nthe\nbasis\nfor\nthis\nbelief.\nR2324-25.\ntestified\nthat,\nin response\nto the \"free\npussy\" message, another\nfraternity\nmember\nmentioned rumors of an \"orgy occurring\nwithin\nthe house at that\npoint,\"\nand\nspecifically\n8\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n12 of 30\n\n--- Page 13 ---\nremembered the use of the word \"orgy\"\nand Doe being present\nfor\n(and possibly\noverhearing)\nthe\nexchange.\nR2370-75.\ntestified\nthat he went with Doe to the Alumni room, in response\nto the\nSnapchat message, but did not think Doe entered\n(he just\nremembered Doe in the room later\nwhen others\nwere discussing\ntaking\nketamine off Roe).\nR2370-75, R2387-88.\ntestified\nthat,\nin response\nto later\nrumors about what occurred\nin the Alumni room, Doe asked to be included\nin\nan apology message to Roe, which\nsent,\nexplaining\nto Roe that Doe was \"sorry\nand should\nhave never been in that room.\"\nR2571-73, R1149.\nDoe admitted\nto feeling\nthe need to apologize\nbut not the\nspecific\nremark.\nR2985-86.\nDoe's attorney\ncross-examined\nasking\nabout the\ncircumstances\nleading\nup to Doe entering\nthe room and the extent of his memories about Doe's\napology.\nR2772-2781.\nMtestified\nthat he went with Doe to the Alumni room to check onEand for Doe to\nvape (and that\nthey thought\nthe Snapchat was a joke).\nR2450-51, R2472-73.\nadmitted\nhe\nspoke about\nthe\n\"free\npussy\" message with Doe, and they speculated\nthat \"maybe it's\nnot a joke.\"\nR2472.\nfurther\nspeculated\nthat Doe sent\nthe\n\"firsthand\npov\" message as they entered\nthe\nAlumni room but claimed\nit was still\nsent\nin jest.\nR2475.\nadmitted\nthat when someone asked\nvia Snapchat if the \"Shop\nstill\nopen,\"\nand he replied\n\"Yeah\"\nand \"LFG,\"\nhe was still\nin the\nAlumni room with Doe. R2478-80, R2519.\nDoe's attorney\nthen cross-examined\non these\nsametopics\nand asked\nwhy he had decided\nto cooperate\ninitially\nwith Doe. R2529-2537.\nDoe's Attorney\nRaises Complaints\nAbout\nPanelist\nBao\nOnMay 15, 2025, when\nwas testifying,\nDoe's attorney\ncomplained\nthat he believed\nPanelist\nBao (\"Bao\")\nwas not paying\nattention.\nR3439.\nDuring\nthe next break,\nthe Hearing\nChair spoke to the panelists,\nwho each conveyed that\nthey were actively\nengaged, which\nthe\nChair shared with\nall\nhearing\nparticipants.\nBranchini\nAff.\n\u00b6 47; R3459.\n9\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n13 of 30\n\n--- Page 14 ---\nAround 1:50 PMthat\nsame day (after\nlunch),\nDoe's attorney\nsent\ne-mails\ncomplaining\nthat Bao appeared to be driving\nin a car and demandedan adjournment\nuntil\nshe stopped\ndriving.\nR3443-3454. A break was taken\nat 2:12 PM(R2526),\nand Bao explained\nto the Chair that\nshe\nhad tried\nto complete a short\ndrive\nover the lunch break but had been unable to find\na place\nto\nstop because of heavy traffic\n(but was still\nlogged on to participate).\nBranchini\nAff.\n\u00b6\u00b6 48-49.\nOver the break, Bao found a suitable\nplace\nto stop and continued\nactively\nparticipating\nin the\nhearing.\nId.\nThe next day, on May 16, 2025, Doe's counsel demanded\"a new Hearing Panel\nand for\nthe hearing\nto restart.\"\nR3455-56.\nOnMonday, May 19, 2025, the\nTitle\nIX Coordinator\nforwarded\nthe Hearing Chair's\nresponse\nto Doe's\nattorney.\nR3459-60.\nThe Chair explained\nthat\nall\nconcerns\nraised\non May 15\nwere addressed\nin real\ntime.\nId.\nThe Chair further\nexplained\nSection\n26.10 of the Procedures\nprovides\nthat\nshe maydeclare\na mishearing\n\"if\nthe process\nhas becomeirreparably\ntainted,\"\nwhich mayinclude\n\"circumstances\nduring\na hearing\nrendering\na panelist\nunsuitable\nfor\nthe\npanel.\"\nId.\nThe Chair found that\nthere was nothing\nto indicate\nthe hearing\nprocess had been\ntainted,\nlet\nalone\nirreparably,\nespecially\nsince\nall\nconcerns\nhad been \"immediately\nand directly\naddressed\"\nduring\nthe\nsession.\nR3459-60.\nDoe's Closing\nStatement\nIn a final,\nwritten\nclosing\nstatement,\nDoe carefully\nanalyzed\nthe testimony\nagainst\nhim in\nterms of why he went into\nthe room and what he did when he was in there -\ni.e.,\nwhere was he in\nthe room in relation\nto Roe and did he see her naked or engaged in sexual\nactivity.\nR3495-97.\nDoe specifically\ndiscussed\nthe evidence\nregarding\nhis\nintent\nwhen he decided\nto go into\nthe\nAlumni room.\nId.;\nsee also R3497 (\"I\nsimply responded to sophomoric Snapchat messages, went\nto go look\nfor\n[his\nfriend],\nfind\na new vape, and to see what \"Free Pussy\"\n... was all\nabout.\").\n10\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n14 of 30\n\n--- Page 15 ---\nIV.\nTHEHEARINGPANELDECISION\nOnAugust\n18, 2025,\nthe Hearing Panel issued a unanimous\ndecision.\nBranchini\nAff.\n\u00b6\n53; R3503-3601.\nThe Panel found Doe consistently\ntestified\nhe did not observe Roe naked and\ndid not partake\nin drug use, and then analyzed,\nin detail,\nhis prior\nexplanations\n(and his proffered\ntimeline)\nfor why he entered\nthe Alumni room and what he did when he got there,\nalong with\nvarious\nrelated\ntestimony.\nR3536-38.\nThe Panel found the evidentiary\nrecord\ninsufficient\nto\nestablish\nDoe ingested\nketamine off Roe's body (R3541),\nand, therefore,\nhe was not responsible\nfor Sexual Assault,\nand found that\nthe preponderance of evidence\nshowedRoe was aware, by her\nown account,\nthat\nshe was nude when Doe was in the room, so he was not responsible\nfor\nSexual\nExploitation.\nR3540.\nAt the same time,\nthe Panel considered\nSection\n3.2 of the Procedures,\nwhich\nprohibits\nattempting\nto commit prohibited\nconduct,\nand found Doe had attempted\nto commit Sexual\nExploitation\nwhen he entered\nthe Alumni room.\nR3540.\nThe Panel found the\n\"free\npussy\"\nmessage \"communicated\nan invitation\nfor\nothers\nto go to the alumni room, along with a reference\nto female sexual anatomy.\"\nR3539. And \"by [Doe's]\nown account,\nhe went to the room, at least\nin part,\nbecause of a Snapchat message indicating\nthere was 'free\npussy in alumni.'\"\nR3540.\nThe Panel found\n\"it more likely\nthan not that\n[Doe]\nunderstood that\nthe 1:42 a.m. message\nindicated\nsomekind of sexual\nsituation\ninvolving\na female\" and found his\nassertions\nthat he\nthought\nthe message was a joke \"incompatible\nwith\nhis account\nthat he was sufficiently\n'worried'\nabout what was happening in the room that he went to check on the situation.\"\nR3540-41.\nThe\nPanel\nalso took into\nconsideration\nDoe's \"not\na bit\"\nmessage and the\nfact he received\nconfirmation\nthere was a girl\npresent\nin the room before\nentering.\nR3541.\n11\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n15 of 30\n\n--- Page 16 ---\nThe Panel \"therefore\ndetermined by a preponderance of the evidence that\n[Doe]\nunderstood that\na female was likely\nnude and/or\nengaged in sexual\nactivity\nin the [room]\n...,\nand\nentered\nthe room on that\nbasis,\nintending\nto observe\nthe same.\" R3541.\nFinally,\nnoting\nthat Roe\ndid not invite\nDoe or have any idea he would be coming\nin response\nto the Snapchats,\nwhich she\nwas not aware of at the time,\nthe Panel found that Doe engaged in conduct directly\ntending\ntowards completion\nof sexual\nexploitation\nby entering\nthe room with\nthe\nintent\nto observe Roe\nnude or engaged in sexual\nactivity\nwithout\nher knowledge\nor consent,\neven if he ultimately\nfound\nher covered by a sheet and not in that moment engaged in sexual\nactivity.\nR3541.\nV.\nDOE'SAPPEAL\nDoe appealed\nthe Panel's\ndecision,\nraising\namong other\nissues\nBao's attention\nduring\ns testimony\nand the\nfact Doe was found responsible\nfor Attempting\nSexual Exploitation,\neven\nthough he was charged with Sexual Exploitation.\nDoe further\nargued that\nthe record was\ninsufficient\nfor\nthe Panel to find\nthat he had the\nrequisite\nintent\nto commit Attempted\nSexual\nExploitation.\nR3602-19.\nOnJanuary\n14, 2026,\nthe Appeal Panel unanimously\naffirmed\nthe Hearing Panel's\ndecision.\nR3629-30.\nThe Panel reasoned that\nthe time Bao was in the car was a \"substantially\nde\nminimis\namount of time\nin a hearing\nthat\nspanned many hours and multiple\ndays,\"\nand that\nthe\nissue was promptly\naddressed,\nconcluding\nthe Chair appropriately\nexercised\nher discretion.\nR3629.\nThe Panel noted the language in the Notice of Formal Complaint\nthat\n\"clearly\nnotified\nyou that\nadditional\nviolations\nmight be identified\nthroughout\nthe process,\"\nand noted that\nthe\nFormal Complaint\nclearly\n\"detailed\nthe factual\nallegations\nunderlying\nthe misconduct\nfor which\nyou were found responsible.\"\nId.\n12\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n16 of 30\n\n--- Page 17 ---\nVL\nDOECOMMENCEsTHs PROCEEDING\nOnMarch 30, 2026, Doe commencedthis\nproceeding,\nasking\nthe Court to annul\nthe\nmisconduct\nfinding\nand to issue\na declaratory\njudgment,\npursuant\nto CPLR\u00a7 3001,\nthat\nCornell\nmisapplied\nits\npolicies\nand acted in an arbitrary\nand capricious\nmanner\n3\nSpecifically,\nDoe\nargues Cornell\nfailed\nto follow\nits\nprocedures\nby finding\nhim responsible\nfor Attempting\nSexual\nExploitation,\nbut only giving\nhim notice\nof the Sexual Exploitation\ncharge, and that Bao's\nactions\nsomehow \"irreparably\ncompromised\"\nand \"tainted\"\nthe proceeding because she\nsupposedly missed critical\ntestimony\nin support\nof his\ndefenses.\nNotably,\nDoe does not\nchallenge\nthe Hearing Panel's\nfindings\nof fact\nor responsibility.\nPetition\n\u00b6 21.\nARGUMENT\nL\nCORNELL'SCONDUCTPROCEEDINGSANDDETERMINATIONSAREENTITLEDTO\nDEFERENCEUNDERARTICLE78\nCornell's\ndisciplinary\ndecisions\nare subject\nto review under Article\n78 only\nto determine\nwhether the university\nsubstantially\ncomplied with\nits own policies\nand procedures\nand had a\nrational\nbasis\nfor\nits\ndecisions.\nDoe v. Cornell\nUniv.,\n163 A.D.3d\n1243, 1245 (3d Dep't\n2018);\nHymanv. Cornell\nUniv.,\n82 A.D.3d\n1309, 1310 (3d Dep't\n2011);\nsee also Kickertz\nv. NewYork\nUniv.,\n25 N.Y.3d\n942, 944 (2015)\n(\"private\neducational\ninstitution\"\nimposing\ndisciplinary\naction\non student \"need only ensure\nthat\nits published\nrules\nare\n'substantially\nobserved'\")\n(citing\nTedeschi\nv. Wagner Coll.,\n49 N.Y.2d\n652, 660 (1980));\nVanHouten\nv. Mount St. Mary Coll.,\n137\nA.D.3d\n1293, 1295 (2d Dep't 2016) (\"Private\nschools\nare afforded\nbroad discretion\nin\n3 Doe's\ndeclaratory\njudgment claim can only be asserted\nthrough\na plenary\naction.\nSee Nicholas\nv. Martuscello,\n245\nA.D.3d 1055, 1056-57 (3d Dep't\n2026).\nFurther,\nbecause Doeseeks Article\n78 relief\nin the form of declaratory\njudgment,\nCornell\nmaintains\nthere\nis no basis\nfor\nthis\nCourt to convert\nthis\nspecial\nproceeding\ninto\na hybrid\naction\nunder CPLR103(c).\nSee Sutherland\nv. Glennon, 221 A.D.2d 893, 894 (3d Dep't\n1995) (declaratory\njudgment\nportion\nof hybrid\ncase should have been converted\nto an Article\n78 proceeding\nbecause it merely requested\nannulment\nof the respondent's\ndetermination);\nCustom Topsoil,\nInc.\nv. City of Buffalo,\n63 A.D.3d 1511, 1511 (4th\nDep't\n2009) (hybrid\naction properly\ntreated\nas only an Article\n78 proceeding\nbecause declaratory\njudgment action\nnot appropriate\nprocedural\nvehicle\nfor challenging\nunderlying\ndetermination).\n13\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n17 of 30\n\n--- Page 18 ---\nconducting\ntheir\nprograms, including\ndecisions\ninvolving\nthe\ndiscipline,\nsuspension\nand\nexpulsion\nof\n. . . students.\").\nSubstantial\ncompliance does not require\nperfection\nor strict\nadherence.\nSeeDoe v.\nSkidmore Coll.,\n152 A.D.3d\n932, 935 (3d Dep't 2017) (\"Perfect\nadherence to every procedural\nrequirement\nis not necessary\nto demonstrate\nsubstantial\ncompliance[.]\").\nAnd, when a\ndetermination\n\"is\nsupported\nby a rational\nbasis,\nit must be sustained\neven if the reviewing\ncourt\nwould have reached a different\nresult.\"\nCDEElec.,\nInc.\nv. Rivera,\n124 A.D.3d\n1178, 1180 (3d\nDep't\n2015).\nMoreover,\nto challenge\nsuccessfully\na conduct decision,\na petitioner\nalso needs to\nestablish\na resulting\nprejudice.\nZartoshti\nv. Columbia\nUniv.,\n79 A.D.3d\n470, 471 (1st Dep't\n2010) (upholding\ndisciplinary\ndecision\nagainst\nstudent where university\ndeviated\nfrom policy\nbut\nstudent\ncould\ndemonstrate\nno prejudice).\nFinally,\nuniversities\nin NewYork,\nparticularly\nprivate\nuniversities,\nare afforded\na high\nlevel\nof deference\nregarding\ninternal\ndisciplinary\nproceedings,\nand complaints\nabout general\nfairness\nor legal\ndue process\nalone\nare not enough to disturb\nstudent conduct decisions.\nSee\nSkidmore Coll.,\n152 A.D.3d\nat 934-35 (\"Petitioner's\nclaims\nas to fundamental\nfairness\nare\nwithout\nmerit\nas respondent\nis not a public\nuniversity.\nThus,\nits\nrelationship\nwith\nits\nstudents\nis\nessentially\na private\none such that\n...\nits\ndisciplinary\nproceedings\ndo not implicate\nthe full\npanoply of due process\nguarantees.\")\n(internal\ncitations\nand quotations\nomitted);\nRensselaer Soc.\nof Eng'rs\nv. Rensselaer Polytechnic\nInst.,\n260 A.D.2d\n992, 993 (3d Dep't\n1999) (defining\nstandard\nof review\nfor\nArticle\n78 petition\nand noting\ncontentions\nof unfairness\nare \"misplaced\nwithin\nthe appropriate\ncontext\nof our review\").\n14\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n18 of 30\n\n--- Page 19 ---\nH.\nDOE'SCOMPLAINTSABOUTLACKOFNOTICEAREMERITLESS\nA.\nCornell\nSubstantially\nComplied With\nIts\nProcedures\nDoe argues Cornell\nviolated\nits Policy\n6.4 by finding\nhim responsible\nfor Attempting\nSexual Exploitation\neven though the university\nnever included\n\"Attempting\nto Commit\nProhibited\nConduct\"\nas a specific\ncharge.\nSuch an argument\nis meritless\nand flies\nin the face of\nthe record\nbefore\nthis\nCourt.\nDoe was served with\nthree\nNotices\nof Formal Complaint\nthat\noutlined\nthe\nspecific\nalleged\nprohibited\nconduct at issue\n(Sexual\nAssault\nand Sexual Exploitation)\nand the underlying\nfactual\nallegations\nrelated\nto that\nmisconduct.\nSee supra 2-3.\nParticularly\nrelevant,\nDoe was informed\nthat he was being accused of seeing\nthe\n\"free\npussy\" message and deciding\nto go to the Alumni\nroom for\nthe purpose of observing\nRoe naked and/or\nengaging in sexual\nactivity\n(and without\nher\nknowledge\nor permission).\nSee supra\nid.\nDoe was also\nnotified\nagain of these factual\nallegations\nand the alleged\nprohibited\nconduct in the Notice of Hearing.\nSeesupra\n5.\nSignificantly,\nthe\nthree\nNotices\nof Formal Complaint\nall warned Doe that\n\"[t]he\nUniversity\nmayhold\nthe Respondents accountable\nfor\nviolations\nof Policy\n6.4 and other policies\nthat\nare not referenced\nin the Formal Complaint\nbut are learned\nabout from evidence,\ntestimony,\nor admissions\nduring\nthe\ninvestigation\nand adjudication\nprocess.\"\nSee supra 2-3.\nFrom the very\nbeginning of the process, Doe was informed he could be found responsible\nfor any additional\nPolicy\n6.4 violation,\nlet\nalone the attempt\nof prohibited\nconduct specifically\nidentified.\nThe purpose of the notice\nrequirements\n- whether under the Formal Complaint\nor Notice\nof Hearing -\nis to allow respondents\nsufficient\nnotice\nof what will\nbe the focus of the\nmatter:\nthis\nincludes\nalleged\nprohibited\nconduct,\nbut equally\nimportant\nare the underlying\nfacts.\nSee,\ne.g.,\nBranchini\nAff.,\nEx. 2 (Procedures),\nSection\n18 (explaining\nNotice should\ninclude,\nif possible,\ndate,\ntime,\nand location,\nalong with\nfactual\nallegations\npertaining\nto prohibited\nconduct).\nA\n15\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n19 of 30\n\n--- Page 20 ---\nrequirement\nthat\nthe university\nmust include\na pro forma notice\nthat\nfor any asserted\ncharge the\nrespondent\ncould be found responsible\nfor\nattempt\nrather\nthan the completion\nof such conduct\nserves no purpose and provides\nno substantive\nnotice,\nparticularly\nwhere the underlying\nfacts\nand\nelements\nof the offense\nare the samefor both charges.\nMoreover,\nperfection\nis not the standard upon which\nthis Court reviews\nCornell's\nactions.\nThe fact\nthat Attempting\nSexual Exploitation\nwas not included\nas a specific\ncharge does not\nmean Cornell\nfailed\nto substantially\ncomply with\nits\npolicies\nand procedures,\nin form or\nsubstance.\nDoe was on notice\nof what he was alleged\nto have done, the specific\nrelated\nfacts,\nand\nwhat prohibited\nconduct was at issue.\nSee Skidmore\nColl.,\n152 A.D.3d\nat 935 (\"Perfect\nadherence to every procedural\nrequirement\nis not necessary\nto demonstrate\nsubstantial\ncompliance\n[with\nprocedures]\").\nFinally,\nit bears noting\nthat, by Doe's\nlogic,\nit would not have been arbitrary\nand\ncapricious\nif the Hearing Panel found him responsible\nfor\nactual\nSexual Exploitation\nbecause the\nuniversity\nwould have ostensibly\ncomplied with\nits\nnotice\npolicies,\nbut\nit was arbitrary\nand\ncapricious\nfor\nthe Panel\nto determine\n(correctly)\nthat\nthe evidence\nestablished\nhe was only\nresponsible\nfor\nthe\nlesser\ncharge.\nB.\nThe Elements of Sexual Exploitation\nand Attempting\nSexual Exploitation\nAre the Same\nDoe repeatedly\nargues the elements\nof attempting\nprohibited\nconduct and the actual\nprohibited\nconduct are different.\nThey are not.\nAny analysis\nof \"attempt\"\nis necessarily\ncontingent\non the elements of the actual\nconduct.\nUnder Section\n3.2 of the Procedures,\na person \"attempts\nto commit prohibited\nconduct\nif,\nwith\nthe\nintent\nto commit such conduct,\nthat person engages in conduct directly\ntending\ntoward\ncompletion\nof the prohibited\nconduct\" (emphasis added).\nBranchini\nAff.,\nEx. 2 at 4.\nThis\ndefinition\nrequires\nthe elements\nof 1)\n\"intent\"\nand 2) engaging in conduct \"directly\ntending\n16\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n20 of 30\n\n--- Page 21 ---\ntoward completion\"\nof the act.\nId.\nPut another\nway, the recipient\nneeds the same intent\nas the\nprohibited\nconduct and engages in the sameacts and activities\nnecessary\nto complete the\nprohibited\nconduct.\nUnder Section\n3.6 of the Procedures,\n\"Sexual Exploitation\"\nis defined\nas, among other\nacts,\n\"intentionally\n...\n[o]bserving\nanother person when that person is nude or engaged in sexual\nactivity\nwithout\nthe knowledge and consent\nof the person observed or allowing\nanother\nto\nobserve\nconsensual\nsexual\nactivity\nwithout\nthe knowledge and consent of all\nparties\ninvolved.\"\nBranchini\nAff.,\nEx. 2 at 7 (emphasis added).\nThe key inquiry\nhere remains the same: it revolves\naround Doe's\nintentions,\nfrom the\ntime he received\nthe \"free\npussy\" message until\nthe time he entered\nthe Alumni room.\nPut\nanother way, the relevant\nquestion\nasks why he went into\nthe room that\nnight.\nAnd Doe and his\nattorney\nwere on notice\nof this\ncentral\nissue\nfrom the very first\nNotice of Formal Complaint.\nInterestingly\nenough, Doe's owncounsel\nhas a webpagedevoted to Cornell\nand Policy\n6.4.4\nThere is even a section\non attempted\nconduct,\nin which counsel\nexplains\nthe following:\nCornell's\nPolicy\n6.4\ncontemplates\nan attempt,\nor uncompleted\ncommission\nof\nsome prohibited\nconduct.\nAttempting\nto commit prohibited\nconduct includes\nsituations\nin which\na person intends\nto engage in prohibited\nconduct,\nand that\nperson does something,\ntakes some action,\nthat\nleads\ntoward the completion\nof\nthe\nprohibited\nconduct\nwithout\nactually\ncompleting\nthe\noffense.\nThis\nmight\ninclude\nan offensive\nor otherwise\nprohibited\nmessage through\nsocial\nmedia or\ntext\nwhich\nis\nsent,\nbut\nfor\nwhatever\nreason\nnever\nactually\nreceived\nby the\nintended\nrecipient.\nId.\n(emphasis added).\nThe hypothetical\nproffered\nabove, with a text\nmessage sent but not\nreceived,\nseems quite\nanalogous to Doe's\nsituation,\nwhere he appears\nto have entered\na room for\n4 https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/practice-areas/ny-college-arrests-title-ix-disciplinary-hearings/cornell-arrests-\ndisciplinary-hearing-title-ix-misconduct-investi/prohibited-conduct-and-definitions-under-cornell-s-title-ix-poli/,\nlast\nvisited\nJuly\n17, 2026.\n17\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n21 of 30\n\n--- Page 22 ---\na specific\npurpose but through accident\nor happenstance did not succeed.\nC.\nDoe WasNot Blindsided\nor Prejudiced\nDespite\nthe fact Doe had the\nrequisite\nnotice,\nhe maintains\nhe was the victim\nof a \"bait-\nand-switch,\"\nclaiming\nhe was somehow deprived\nof the opportunity\nto defend himself\nfully.\nNothing\ncould be further\nfrom the\ntruth\nbecause the record\nis clear\nthat he and his attorney\nrepeatedly\nand consistently\nattacked\nthe\nassertion\nthat he entered\nthe Alumni room with\nthe\nintent\nof observing\nRoe in somestate of undress\nor engaging in sexual\nactivity.\nDoe challenged\nthe element of intent\nby claiming\n1) he was unaware whether sexual\nactivity\nwas happening in the room, 2) was concerned about\nwho he thought\nwas in the\nroom, and 3) wanted a vape.\nSee supra 3-5.\nTo support\nthis\nmulti-faceted\ndefense, Doe\nsubmitted\na detailed\ntimeline\nfrom the time he received\nthe first\nSnapchat message through\nentering\nthe room.\nSee supra 4. He secured the initial\ncooperation\nof\nwhowas with him\nduring\nthis key period\nof time.\nSee supra\nid.\nHe spent hours\ntestifying\nabout every aspect of\nwhat happened after\nhe received\nthe Snapchat message - what he was thinking,\nwhy he replied\nwith\nthe responses he did,\nwhere he was when he sent such responses;\nhe even explained\nwhy he\nknocked on the door and what he sawwhen he entered\nthe room.\nSeesupra 7-8.\nHis counsel\nalso cross-examined numerous witnesses,\nattempting\nto buttress\nthis\ndefense, and rebut\ntestimony\ntending\nto establish\nDoe's\nintent.\nSeesupra 6, 8-9.\nIn truth,\nDoe was found responsible\nfor Attempting\nSexual Exploitation,\nnot because he\nwas somehow denied an opportunity\nto raise\na relevant\ndefense\nregarding\nhis\nintent,\nbut because\nthe Hearing Panel found\nit more likely\nthan not that he entered\nthe Alumni room, after\nreceiving\nthe Snapchat message(s),\nwith the expectation\nRoe would be naked or engaged in sexual\nactivity\n(which he admitted\nwas largely\nconfirmed by an individual\ndirectly\nbefore\nhe entered\nthe room).\nSeesupra\n11-12.\nThe Panel found his\nassertions\nthat he thought\nthe message was a joke\n18\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n22 of 30\n\n--- Page 23 ---\n\"incompatible\"\nwith\nhis account\nthat he felt\nthe need to check on what was happening in the\nroom.\nSee id.\nDoe was provided\nevery\nopportunity\nto challenge\nhis alleged\nintent,\nand he took\nevery\nopportunity\nto do so.\nWhile Doe claims\nhe would have presented\nadditional\ndefenses\n(Petition\n\u00b6 33), he fails\nto\nidentify\na single\none in his\nPetition.\nHe simply was not prejudiced\nby supposedly failing\nto be\nreminded that he could be found responsible\nfor Attempting\nSexual Exploitation.\nSee Zartoshti,\n79 A.D.3d\nat 471 (upholding\nstudent\ndisciplinary\ndecision\nwhere university\narguably\ndeviated\nfrom \"literal\ncompliance\"\nwith policy\nbecause student could demonstrate\nno prejudice).\nD. Doe Cites NoApplicable\nNewYork Authority\nInstead of citing\nany analogous or binding\nauthority,\nDoe cites\ncases from outside\nof New\nYork.\nSetting\naside their\nlimited\nprecedential\nvalue,\nthey\nare entirely\ninapposite\nand\ndistinguishable\nbecause none of them concern the instant\nquestion\nof whether a student\nshould\nhave received\nnotice\nof the related\ncharge of attempting\nprohibited\nconduct.\nSee,\ne.g., Doe v.\nW.\nNewEngland\nUniv.,\n228 F. Supp.\n3d.\n154,\n175 (D. Mass. 2016) (review\nboard improperly\nfound\nstudent\nresponsible\nbased on different\ndefinition\nof misconduct from separate\npolicy,\nand neither\ndefinitions\nnor separate\npolicy\nwere included\nin applicable\nrules\nhandbook or notices\nprovided\nto\nstudent);\nDoe v. Brandeis\nUniv.\n177 F. Supp. 3d 561, 603-04 (D. Mass. 2016) (student\nimproperly\n\"expected to defend himself\nagainst\nthe vague and open-ended charge\nthat he had\nIumerous\ninappropriate,\nnonconsensual sexual\ninteractions'\"\nrelated\nto a \"lengthy\nand\napparently\ntangled\nrelationship\nthat went on for\nnearly\ntwo years\");\nDoe v.\nTr. of Dartmouth\nColl.,\n615 F. Supp. 3d 47, 61-62 (D.N.H.\n2022) (plaintiff\nprevailed\nonly\nat motion\nto dismiss\nstage,5\nwith Court ruling\nit was possible\nhe was prejudiced\nby not receiving\nnotice\nof sexual\n5 The Court\nlater\ndismissed\nplaintiff's\nnotice\nclaim\nat summaryjudgment because he failed\nto meet his burden\nbeyond the pleading\nstage.\n731 F. Supp. 3d 222, 243-44 (D.N.H.\n2024).\n19\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n23 of 30\n\n--- Page 24 ---\ntouching\ncharge because the charge of \"sexual\nintercourse\"\nwas defined\ndifferently\nfrom \"sexual\ntouching\");\nFellheimer\nv. Middlebury\nColl.,\n869 F. Supp. 238, 246-47 (D. Vt.\n1994)\n(plaintiff\ngiven notice\nof one charge,\ndescribed\neither\nas \"rape\"\nor \"sexual\nassault,\"\nbut not provided\nnotice\nof \"separate\nand distinct\ncharge of\n...\ndisrespect\nof persons,\"\nnor was he provided\nnotice\nof what\nspecific\nalleged\nconduct in terms of underlying\nfactual\nallegations\nsupposedly constituted\n\"disrespect\nof persons\").\nThe fact Doe does not cite\na single NewYork authority\nin support\nof his notice\nargument\nis not surprising\nbecause no such case law exists.\nCourts\nin NewYork have only\nannulled\ndisciplinary\nfindings\nfor\nlack of notice\nin egregious\nand prejudicial\ncircumstances,\nones that\nare\nsimply not present\nhere.\nSee,\ne.g.,\nSkidmore\nColl.,\n152 A.D.3d\nat 935-37 (formal\ncomplaint\nprovided \"no factual\nallegations\nidentifying\nthe specific\nactions\nthat were alleged\nto be policy\nviolations\"\nand instead provided only recitations\nof charges, which court noted provided\nlittle\nnotice\nvalue);\nEbert\nv.\nYeshiva\nUniv.,\n780 N.Y.S.2d\n283, 286 (Sup.\nCt. N.Y.\nCnty.\n2004) (despite\nrules\nrequiring\nreasonable\nadvance notice\nof interview\nto formulate\nan \"oral\nand written\ndefense,\"\npetitioner\nonly informed of charges and provided copy of disciplinary\nrules\nat outset\nof\nmeeting and informed meeting would be sole\nopportunity\nto respond).\nSkidmore College\nis instructive\nhere:\nthe Third Department\nactually\ndiscounted\nthe value\nof simply\nreciting\nspecific\nmisconduct\ncharges because such charges may\"include\na broad range\nof actions\nthat would be impossible\nfor an accused student\nto discern\nwhat conduct they were\nalleged\nto have committed.\"\nInstead,\nthe Court explained\nthe\nfactual\nallegations\nprovide\nthe\nmore important\nand useful\nnotice.\nSee Skidmore\nColl.,\n152 A.D.3d\nat 935-37.\nNotably,\nDoe does not challenge\nthe\nsufficiency\nof the Hearing Panel's\nfactual\nfindings\nor the\nfact\nthe Panel's\nresponsibility\nfinding\nwas rational,\nbased on the hearing\nrecord.\nAnd it\nis\n20\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n24 of 30\n\n--- Page 25 ---\nundisputed\nthat\nthe findings\nat the center of the Hearing Panel's\nresponsibility\ndetermination\nfor\nDoe are directly\nrelated\nto the\nfactual\nallegations\nnoticed\nrepeatedly\nby Cornell\nover the course\nof the underlying\nproceeding.\nIt simply\ndefies\ncommonsense to argue that\na rote\nrecitation\nof\nthe attempt\nlanguage would have provided any real\nnotice\nvalue\nto Doe or that\nthe lack of\nreference\nto this\nrelated\nbut lesser\ncharge was arbitrary\nand capricious.\nHI.\nTHEHEARINGCHAIR'SDECISIONNor To DECLAREAMISHEARINGWAsNor\nARBITRARYANDCAPRICIOUS\nDoe claims\nin his\nPetition\nthat Bao's supposed inattention\non May 15, 2025,\nincluding\nthe\nshort\ntime\nshe spent in a car, somehow \"irreparably\ncompromised\"\nand \"tainted\"\nthe hearing\nbecause she missed key testimony\nfrom\nPetition\n\u00b6\u00b6 40-41.\nThe record\nof the underlying\nproceeding not only does not support\nthese arguments but\ndirectly\nrefutes\nthem.\nFirst\nand foremost,\nthe Hearing Panel decision\nwas unanimous among the\nthree\npanelists.\nSeesupra\n11. No matter what Bao decided, Doe still\nwould have been found\nresponsible\nbased on the other two Panelists.\nFurther,\nthe Hearing Chair diligently\naddressed\nall\nconcerns\nraised\nin real\ntime,\nand the\nChair correctly\nexercised\nher discretion\nby refusing\nto\nstart\nover an entire\neight-party\nmisconduct\nproceeding\nthat would span 12 days when there was no legitimate\nbasis\nto do so. The Panelists\nconfirmed\nthey were actively\npaying\nattention\nduring\nthe morning\nsession on May 15, 2025.\nSee\nsupra\n9.\nThe time Bao spent in the\ncar, where she was still\nobserving\nthe proceeding,\namounted\nto only\n15 pages of a 1,732 page hearing\ntranscript.\nR2511-26.\nIf that were not enough, directly\nafter\nthat\nbrief\nperiod,\nDoe's attorney\nbegan cross-examining\nrehashing\nthe\nearlier\ntestimony\nand raising\nnumerous issues\nrelated\nto Doe's defenses,\nincluding\nthe \"pov\"\ntext Doe sent,\ntheir\njourney\nto the Alumni room, and what\nsawwhen they entered the room, for\nall of which Bao\nwas present\nand attentive.\nR2529-40.\n21\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n25 of 30\n\n--- Page 26 ---\nUnder Cornell's\nProcedures,\nthe Hearing Chair has full\ndiscretion\nunder Section\n26.10\nregarding\nadjournments and whether to declare\na \"mishearing.\"\nSee Branchini\nAff.,\nEx.\n2, \u00a7\n26.10.1\n(\"The Hearing Chair mayadjourn\nthe hearing\n[based on the potential\nunavailability\nof a\nparticipant\nand] may also\ndeclare\na 'mishearing'\nif the process\nhas becomeirreparably\ntainted\n(e.g.,\nprejudicial\nconduct by an advisor,\ncircumstances\nduring\na hearing\nrendering\na panelist\nunsuitable\nfor\na panel,\netc.).\").\nNewYork courts\nconsistently\ndefer to a Hearing Chair's\ndecisions\nwhen such decisions\nare within\nthe\ndiscretion\nvested under the applicable\npolicies,\nincluding\nin prior\ncases involving\nCornell\nand Policy\n6.4.\nSee,\ne.g., Doe v. Cornell\nUniv.,\n70 N.Y.S.3d\n750, 760-62 (Sup.\nCt.\nTompkins\nCnty.\n2017),\naff'd,\n163 A.D.3d\n1243 (2018)\n(refusing\nto disturb\nHearing Chair's\ndiscretionary\ndecisions\nregarding\nwhether to ask certain\nquestions\nand regarding\nwhether to have\nwitness\ntestify);\nHymanv.\nCornell\nUniv.,\n82 A.D.3d\n1309, 1310 (3d Dep't 2011) (rejecting\nargument Hearing Chair abused discretion\nin overruling\npetitioner's\nobjections\nduring\nhearing);\nsee also Doe 1 v. Syracuse Univ.,\n188 A.D.3d\n1570, 1572-73 (4th\nDep't 2020) (university\nconduct board chairperson's\ndenial\nof request\nto pose certain\nquestions\nto witnesses\nand to call\ncertain\nwitnesses\nat hearing\nwere discretionary\ndeterminations\nreserved\nfor\nchairperson).\nClearly,\nthe Hearing Chair had full\ndiscretion\nin terms of responding\nto complaints\nfrom\nDoe's attorney\nregarding\nBao and had full\ndiscretion\nin terms of declaring\na mishearing.\nThose\ndecisions\n- as a matter\nof law and, given the particular\ncircumstances\nhere - are entitled\nto\ndeference.\n22\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n26 of 30\n\n--- Page 27 ---\nCONCLUSION\nFor all\nthe reasons\nset forth\nabove,\nCornell\nrespectfully\nsubmits\nthat\nthis Court should\ndismiss\nthe Petition,\ntogether\nwith such other and further\nrelief\nas the Court deemsappropriate.\nDated:\nJuly\n17, 2026\n/s/ AdamG. Pence\nADAMG. PENCE\nTHOMASHOEHNER\nRYANT. NELSON\nCornell\nUniversity\nOffice\nof General Counsel\n118 Sage Place\nIthaca, NY 14850\n(607) 255-5124\nAttorneys\nfor Respondent Cornell\nUniversity\n23\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n27 of 30\n\n--- Page 28 ---\n202.8-b CERTIFICATION\nI hereby certify\nthat\nthe foregoing\ndocument\nis 6,983 words and in compliance with\n22 NYCRR202.8-b(c).\nDated:\nJuly\n17, 2026\n/s/ AdamG. Pence\nADAMG. PENCE,ESQ.\n24\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n28 of 30\n\n--- Page 29 ---\nADDENDUM\nScreenshot\nof Initial\nSnapchat\nConversation\n(R1515)\nChi Phi Actives\nt-\n8'\no\nsy in alum pu\nwork\n90 and is not afk soooon\nch\nphi\nnot a bit\nf rst person\np,\n.\nand wh\u00a1P it ou\n1\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n29 of 30\n\n--- Page 30 ---\nTranscript\nof Entire\nSnapchat Conversation\n(R1487)\n(1:42 AM): \"Free pussy in alum pu\"\n(Replying\nto\nat 2:19 AM): \"This\nis crazy work\"\n(2:19 AM): \"Free...\"\n(2:20 AM):\n'\nwent 7 min ago and is not afk sooooo\"\n(2:28\nAM): \"I fucking\nlove\nchi phi\"\n(2:28 AM): \"CHI PHIII\"\n(2:29 AM): \"the alumni\nshit\nis not a bit.\nfirst\nhand pov not a bit.\"\n(2:31\nAM): \"Like\nyou can walk in and whit\nit out rn\"\n(2:33\nAM): \"Type\"\n(2:35\nAM): *Sent Image of Roe that can be seen in video*\n(2:35\nAM): \"Shop\nstill\nopen? \"\n(2:35\nAM): \"Yeah \"\n(2:35\nAM): \"Yeah\"\nUnknown User (2:35\nAM): \"No way!\"\n(2:35\nAM): \"LFG\"\n(2:35\nAM):\n'\nlaying\nrn\"\n(2:36 AM): \"Nice.\nNice guys.\nIs myroom open?\"\n(2:36 AM): \"Lowkey he's cucking\nall of us\"\n(2:36 AM): \"Nym\"\n(Replying\nto\ns 1st 2:36 AMMessage;\n2:36 AM): \"Fuck off mid\"\n(2:36 AM): \"Kid\"\n(2:36 AM): \"I want my\nlicense\"\nUnknown User (Time Unknown):\n\"Are you guys at least\nnaked?\"\n(Time Unknown):\n\"Boys comewhip\nit out\"\n2\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n30 of 30","text":"--- Page 1 ---\nSTATEOFNEWYORK\nSUPREMECOURT:TOMPKINSCOUNTY\nIn the Matter of the Application\nof\nJOHNDOE,\nPetitioner,\nFORAJUDGMENTPURSUANTTOARTICLE 78\nANDSECTION3001 OFTHECPLR\nIndex No. EF2026-0292\n-AGAINST-\nCORNELLUNIVERSITY,\nRespondent.\nRESPONDENT'SMEMORANDUM\nOFLAW\nIN OPPOSITIONTOVERIFIEDPETITION\nADAMG. PENCE\nTHOMASHOEHNER\nRYANT. NELSON\nAttorneys\nfor Respondent\nOffice\nand Post Office\nAddress\nCornell\nUniversity\n118 Sage Place\nIthaca, NY 14850\n(607) 255-5124\nCI2026-22102\nIndex # : EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n1 of 30\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nTABLEOFCONTENTS\nTABLEOFAUTHORITIES ..........................................................................................................\nii\nSTATEMENTOFFACTS.............................................................................................................\n1\nI.\nTHEFORMALCOMPLAINTINITIATEs ANINVESTIGATION....................................................\n2\nII.\nTHEINVESTIGATIONINVOLVING DOE..................................................................................\n3\nIII.\nTHECONSOLIDATED\nHEARING............................................................................................\n5\nIV. THEHEARINGPANELDECISION.........................................................................................\n11\nV.\nDOE'S APPEAL...................................................................................................................\n12\nVI. DOECOMMENCES\nTHIs PROCEEDING\n................................................................................\n13\nARGUMENT................................................................................................................................\n13\nI.\nCORNELL'SCONDUCTPROCEEDINGS\nANDDETERMINATIONS\nAREENTITLEDTo\nDEFERENCEUNDERARTICLE 78........................................................................................\n13\nII.\nDOE'S COMPLAINTsA2our LACKOFNOTICEAREMERITLEss ........................................\n15\nA.\nCornell\nSubstantially\nComplied With\nIts Procedures ...................................................\n15\nB.\nThe Elements of Sexual\nExploitation\nand Attempting\nSexual Exploitation\nAre the Same................................................................................................................\n16\nC.\nDoe WasNot Blindsided\nor\nPrejudiced........................................................................\n18\nD.\nDoe Cites NoApplicable\nNewYork\nAuthority............................................................\n19\nIII.\nTHEHEARINGCHAIR'S DECISIONNOTTODECLAREAMISHEARINGWASNOT\nARBITRARYANDCAPRICIOUS............................................................................................\n21\nCONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................\n23\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n2 of 30\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nTABLEOFAUTHORITIES\nPage(s)\nCases\nCDEElec.,\nInc.\nv. Rivera,\n124 A.D.3d\n1178 (3d Dep't 2015)\n..........................................................................................14\nCustom Topsoil,\nInc.\nv. City of Buffalo,\n63 A.D.3d\n1511 (4th\nDep't 2009)\n...........................................................................................13\nDoe v. Brandeis\nUniv.\n177 F. Supp. 3d 561 (D. Mass. 2016)\n.....................................................................................19\nDoe v. Cornell\nUniv.,\n70 N.Y.S.3d\n750 (Sup.\nCt. Tompkins\nCnty.\n2017)\n.................................................................22\nDoe v. Cornell\nUniv.,\n163 A.D.3d\n1243 (3d Dep't 2018)\n....................................................................................13,\n22\nDoe v.\nTr. of Dartmouth\nColl.,\n615 F. Supp. 3d 47 (D.N.H.\n2022)\n..........................................................................................19\nDoe v. Skidmore\nColl.,\n152 A.D.3d\n932 (3d Dep't 2017)\n................................................................................14,\n16, 20\nDoe v.\nW. NewEngland\nUniv.,\n228 F. Supp.\n3d. 154 (D. Mass. 2016)\n....................................................................................19\nDoe 1 v. Syracuse Univ.,\n188 A.D.3d\n1570 (4th\nDep't 2020)\n.........................................................................................22\nEbert\nv.\nYeshiva\nUniv.,\n780 N.Y.S.2d\n283 (Sup.\nCt. N.Y.\nCnty.\n2004)\n.......................................................................20\nFellheimer\nv. Middlebury\nColl.,\n869 F. Supp. 238 (D. Vt.\n1994)\n...............................................................................................2O\nHymanv. Cornell\nUniv.,\n82 A.D.3d\n1309 (3d Dep't 2011)\n......................................................................................13,\n22\nKickertz\nv. NewYork Univ.,\n25 N.Y.3d\n942 (2015)\n.............................................................................................................13\nNicholas\nv. Martuscello,\n245 A.D.3d\n1055 (3d Dep't 2026)\n..........................................................................................13\nii\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n3 of 30\n\n--- Page 4 ---\nRensselaer Soc. of Eng'rs.\nv. Rensselaer Polytechnic\nInst.,\n260 A.D.2d 992 (3d Dep't\n1999)\n............................................................................................14\nSutherland\nv. Glennon,\n221 A.D.2d\n893 (3d Dep't\n1995)\n............................................................................................13\nTedeschi\nv. Wagner Coll.,\n49 N.Y.2d\n652 (1980)\n.............................................................................................................13\nVanHouten\nv. Mount St. Mary Coll.,\n137 A.D.3d\n1293 (2d Dep't 2016)\n..........................................................................................13\nZartoshti\nv. Columbia\nUniv.,\n79 A.D.3d 470 (2010)\n.......................................................................................................14,\n19\nOther Authorities\nCPLR103.......................................................................................................................................13\niii\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n4 of 30\n\n--- Page 5 ---\nOnOctober\n19, 2024, Jane Roe attended\na party\nat the Chi Phi Fraternity.\nRoe would\nlater\nallege\nshe was the victim\nof a ketamine and alcohol-fueled\nsexual\nassault\ninvolving\nmultiple\nfraternity\nmembers.\nThat night,\nat 1:42 AM, one of these members sent\na group Snapchat\nindicating\nthere was \"free\npussy\" in a bedroom called\nthe \"Alumni\"\nroom. What followed was a\nseries\nof exchanges (which included\na picture\nof Roe) that were recorded\nand later provided\nanonymously\nto the\nuniversity.\nThis\nSnapchat,\nwhich\nis an addendumto this\nbrief,\nbecamea key\nexhibit\nin the\nresulting\nstudent conduct matter.\nDoe participated\nin this exchange with\nhis\nfraternity\nbrothers,\nresponding\nto the\n\"free\npussy\" message at 2:20 AM, implying\nthat\nhis\nfriend,\nwent to the room earlier\nand was now\nunavailable\n(\"\nwent 7 min ago and is not afk sooooo\").\nHeresponded again\nat 2:29 AM,\nostensibly\nconfirming\nthe\n\"free\npussy\" message was real\n(\"the\nalumni\nshit\nis not a bit.\nfirst\nhand\npov not a bit\").\nDoe also\nentered the Alumni room around the sametime he sent these messages.\nDoe was subsequently\ncharged with Sexual Exploitation\nand Sexual Assault\nunder\nCornell's\npolicies.\nAfter\na lengthy\ninvestigation\nand hearing,\nwhere he presented\nrobust\ndefenses, he was found responsible\nonly\nfor Attempting\nSexual Exploitation.\nRather than\naccepting\nthe Hearing Panel's\nfair\nand nuanced determination,\nDoe has filed\nthis\nproceeding,\nclaiming\nCornell\nshould\nhave reminded him he could be found responsible\nfor\nattempted\nconduct\nand complaining\nthat\na panelist\nmaynot have been paying\ncareful\nattention\nfor one hour during\n12 days of hearings.\nSimply\nput,\nthere\nis no basis under the law to grant Doe's Petition.\nSTATEMENTOFFACTS\nOnNovember 14, 2024, Roe met with\nthe Office\nof Institutional\nEquity and Title\nIX\n(\"OIETIX\"),\nwhich\nis tasked with enforcing\nCornell\nPolicy\n6.4,\n\"Prohibited\nBias,\n1\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n5 of 30\n\n--- Page 6 ---\nDiscrimination,\nHarassment, and Sexual and Related\nMisconduct\"\n(\"Policy\n6.4\").\nAffirmation\nof Lauren Branchini\n(\"Branchini\nAff.\")\n\u00b6\u00b6 6-8;\nR50.1\nI.\nTHEFORMALCOMPLAINTINITIATES ANINVESTIGATION\nOnNovember 22, 2024,\nCornell's\nTitle\nIX Coordinator\n(consulting\nwith Roe)\ncommenceda Formal Complaint.\nBranchini\nAff.\n\u00b6 12; R1042-47.\nThe Complaint named seven\nrespondents,\nincluding\nDoe, all\nof whomwere Chi Phi members.\nId.;\nR61.\nUnder Section\n18 of the Procedures,\nat the issuance of the Formal Complaint,\nthe\nTitle\nIX\nCoordinator\nnotifies\nthe complainant\nand respondent(s)\nthe investigation\nis commencing and\nprovides\na copy of the Formal Complaint.\nBranchini\nAff.,\nEx. 2 at 20.\nThe \"notice\"\nis to\nprovide\nthe parties\nwith \"the\nalleged\nprohibited\nconduct and its\ndate,\ntime,\nand location,\nto the\nextent known\" and \"the\nfactual\nallegations\npertaining\nto the prohibited\nconduct.\"\nId.\nAll\nrespondents\nreceived\na copy of the Formal Complaint,\nwhich included\nSection\n3,\nentitled\nAlleged Misconduct,\nand part\n(g)\noutlined\nthe\nallegations\nrelated\nto Doe:\nviolating\nCornell\nUniversity's\nPolicy\n6.4\nprohibition\nagainst\nSexual\nExploitation.\nSpecifically,\nit\nis alleged\nthat\nat the above time and place,\n[Doe]\nintentionally\nviewed\nthe\nComplainant\nin\na\nstate\nof\nundress\nwithout\nher\npermission.\nviolating\nComell\nUniversity's\nPolicy\n6.4\nprohibition\nagainst\nSexual Assault.\nSpecifically,\nit\nis alleged\nthat\nat the above time\nand place,\n[Doe]\ntouched\nhis\nnose to the Complainant's\nnaked torso\nand inhaled\na powered substance\noff her\nbody without\naffirmative\nconsent,\nincluding\nlack of affirmative\nconsent\ndue to\nincapacitation.\nR1046.2\nAlong with the above allegations,\nDoe was specifically\nwarned that\n\"[t]he\nUniversity\nmayhold the Respondents accountable\nfor\nviolations\nof Policy\n6.4 and other\npolicies\nthat\nare not\nI The record for\nthis\nproceeding\nhas already been filed.\nNYSCEFDoc. Nos.\n16-27.\n2 The Formal Complaint\nasserted\nthe sameallegations\nagainst\nanother respondent,\na fraternity\nmemberwho\ncame into\nthe Alumni roomwith Doe.\nSee R1046, R1058.\n2\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n6 of 30\n\n--- Page 7 ---\nreferenced\nin the Formal Complaint\nbut are leamed about from evidence,\ntestimony,\nor\nadmissions\nduring\nthe investigation\nand adjudication\nprocess.\"\nR1044 (emphasis added).\nAs the investigation\ncontinued,\nthe Formal Complaint was updated on January 14, 2025\nand on March 12, 2025.\nBranchini\nAff.\n\u00b6 20; R1048-59.\nThe allegations\nagainst Doe remained\nsubstantively\nthe same. R1052, R1058.\nBoth updated Complaints\nincluded\nthe samewarning\nto\nDoe that he could be found responsible\nfor\nother prohibited\nconduct.\nR1044, R1050, R1056.\nII.\nTHEINVESTIGATIONINVOLVINGDOE\nAfter\nreceiving\nthe Formal Complaint, Doe fully\nparticipated\nin the\nInvestigation\nand had\nevery\nopportunity\nto rebut\nthe\nallegations\nasserted\nagainst\nhim.\nDoe's First\nInterview\nOnDecember 16, 2024,\nbefore\na video of the\nfull\nSnapchat exchange was provided\nto the\nuniversity,\nDoe was interviewed\nby a Title\nIX Investigator.\nR480-503.\nIn this\ninterview,\nhe\nexplained\nhe did not see Roe naked because she pulled\na blanket\nover herself\nand explained\nhe\ndid not do drugs off\nher.\nR481, R484.\nRelevant here,\nhe also\nadmitted\nto receiving\na message\nabout\n\"free\npussy in alumni\"\nbut claimed he did not know what\nit meant.\nR483. Doe asserted\nhe\nand\ndecided\nto go to the room because they were unsure if the message was a joke or what\nwas going on in the room (and because Doe was hoping to get a new vape there).\nId.\nThe Investigator\nasked Doe questions\nabout the Snapchat and what was going through his\nmind then and, most important,\nwhy after\nreading\nthe message he went to the Alumni room.\nR490. Doe specifically\naddressed\nhis\nintent:\n\"by no meanswere we going there\nto get free pussy\nin alumni.\nThat was not our intentions\nat\nall. Wewere just\nchecking out to see if everything\nwas\nokay, and it was.\nEverybody\nin there\nseemed fine.\"\nR490-91.\n3\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n7 of 30\n\n--- Page 8 ---\nDoe also\nsubmitted\nevidence,\nincluding\na timeline\nfrom that\nevening;\nan\nAcknowledgement of Understanding\nof Doe's Involvement\nfrom\nproviding\na similar\naccount\nof events;\nand a screenshot ofMs phone log documenting\na call with Doe leading\nup to when\nthe two met and discussed\nthe Snapchat.\nR1264-69.\nIn this\ntimeline,\nDoe included\na fulsome\ndiscussion\ndocumenting\nthe 10-15 minutes before he entered\nthe Alumni room: Doe claimed he\n\"didn't\nknow if\nit was a joke and didn't\nknow if there was a girl\nin there\nor whether someone was\nin danger or not or [a]\npractical\njoke.\"\nR1264-65.\nHe reiterated\nthat he and\nwent to the\nAlumni room to check on his\nfriend,\nand to vape.\nId.\nwho at the time was cooperating\nwith Doe (R1268),\nalso provided\na timeline\nwith\nsimilar\ninformation\nabout what led them to the\nroom.\nR1234-35.\nAbout six weeks after\nDoe's and\ns initial\ninterviews,\nCornell\nreceived\nfrom an\nanonymoussource the video documenting\nthe\nentire\nSnapchat.\nBranchini\nAff.\n\u00b6 28; R1515.\nwould\nlater amendhis\ntimeline,\nattempting\nto explain why he responded to a question\n\"Shop\nstill\nopen?\" with \"Yeah\"\nand \"LFG,\"\nif there\nreally\nwas no sexual\nactivity\ntaking\nplace\nin the Alumni\nroom when they were there.\nR1456-58.\nclaimed he was adding to the \"crude\njokes\nbeing\nshared in the\nchat.\"\nId.\nMeanwhile,\nDoe was going to need to explain\nhis messages on the exchange.\nDoe's Second Interview\nOnFebruary 24, 2025, Doe was interviewed\nagain.\nR504-520.\nThe Investigator\nwalked\nthrough his proffered\ntimeline\nof events,\ncomparing\nthe timeline\nwith the time stamps from the\nSnapchat,\nfocusing\non the events leading\nup to Doe entering\nthe room.\nR505-19.\nDoe claimed\nhe got a call\nfrom\nat 2:23 AMand did not go down to the Alumni room until\n2:35\n(after\nhis\npov text).\nR509. He claimed that\n\"I went down there\nto see if everything\nwas okay and if\nI\n4\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n8 of 30\n\n--- Page 9 ---\ncould\nhit\na vape.\"\nId.\nThe Interviewer\nwalked Doe through the Snapchat,\ngiving\nhim every\nopportunity\nto explain\nhis two responses\nto the \"free\npussy\" message. R513-17.\nDoe admitted\nhis\nfirst\nmessage, claiming\nthat\n\"went 7 min ago and is not afk soooo,\"\nwas meant to convey\nthat\nwent to the Alumni room and was \"not on his phone\"\n(the\n\"not\"\nwas a mistake,\nand\n\"afk\"\nmeant \"away from keyboard\").\nR513-14.\nDoe was also\ngiven\nan opportunity\nto explain\nhis second message \"the alumni\nshit\nis not a bit.\nFirsthand\npov not a bit.\"\nR515-16.\nDoe said he\ndid not rememberbut admitted\nhe had talked\nto someone about what was happening in the room\nbefore\nentering\nand understood the person to say sexual\nactivity\nwas ongoing:\nI wasn't\nin\nthe room yet.\nI don't\nreally\nremember,\nI just\nknow that\nI talked\nto\nsomeone about\nit before\nentering\n[the]\nroom. They said from their\npoint\nof view,\nthat's\nwhat they\nsaw.\nI was not\nin\nthe room at that\npoint.\nThat's\npart\nof the\nreason why I wanted to go down and check,\ncause they\nsaid from their\npoint\nof\nview\nit wasn't a joke.\nSo, I wanted to see.\nR515-16 (emphasis added).\nHL\nTHECONSOLIDATEDHEARING\nOnApril\n14, 2025,\nthe\nInvestigator\nissued a Hearing Notice and Investigative\nReport.\nR41-113.\nThe Hearing Notice included\ncharges and a brief\nsummary of alleged\nprohibited\nconduct for each respondent.\nR42-44.\nFor Doe, the following\nwas included:\n1.\nRespondent\n[Doe]\nis\naccused of\nviolating\nCornell\nUniversity's\nPolicy\n6.4\nprohibition\nagainst\nSexual\nExploitation.\nSpecifically,\nit\nis\nalleged\nthat\non the\nabove-described\ndate,\ntime,\nand location,\nRespondent [Doe]\nintentionally\nviewed\nthe Complainant\nin a state of undress without\nher permission.\n2.\nRespondent\n[Doe]\nis\naccused of\nviolating\nCornell\nUniversity's\nPolicy\n6.4\nprohibition\nagainst\nSexual Assault\n(Sexual\nContact).\nSpecifically,\nit\nis alleged\nthat\nRespondent [Doe]\ntouched his nose to the Complainant's\nnaked torso\nand inhaled\na powdered substance\noff her body without\nher affirmative\nconsent,\nincluding\nlack\nof affirmative\nconsent due to incapacitation.\nR44 (emphasis added).\n5\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n9 of 30\n\n--- Page 10 ---\nOnApril\n23, 2025, Doe submitted\nan Opening Statement\nin which he claimed he entered\nthe Alumni room to find\nand vape.\nR1628. He specifically\nargued that he lacked\nthe\nrequisite\nintent\nto commit Sexual Exploitation:\n\"That\nsaid,\nentering\na room, even if [Roe] was\nnot fully\ndressed,\nin and of itself\ndoes not satisfy\nthe elements\nof the charges\nagainst meunless\nit\nis alleged\nthat\nI somehowknew prior\nto entering\nshe was undressed and I intentionally\nviewed\nher, two elements\nthat\nare neither\nalleged\n[n]or\nsupported\non the record.\"\nR1630.\nCornell\nheld a consolidated\nhearing\nin May2025 over 12 days.\nR1638.\nRoe's Testimony\nand Cross-Examination\nby Doe's Attorney\nDuring\nthe\nhearing,\nRoe testified\nthat Doe and\nwere like\n\"voyeurs\"\nbecause \"[t]hey\nwere just\nlooming.\"\nR1691.\nDoe's attorney\nthen asked Roe numerous questions\nthat\nspanned\ntwo days and over 40 pages of hearing\ntranscript.\nR1870-1912.\nAmongother\nsubjects,\nhis\nattorney\nasked Roe for her specific\nmemories of Doe while\nhe was in the room.\nId.\nRoe\nadmitted\nshe was under a sheet at times and that\nshe had no specific\nrecollection\nof whether Doe\nsaw her naked when she stood up, or if he snorted ketamine off\nher.\nId.\nReferring\nto Doe and\nshe said\n\"I know they were there.\nAnd they were there\nfor\na while from myrecollection\nof\nit.\nAnd I think\nanything\nis possible.\nAnd if they\ndidn't\ndo ketamine,\nthey could have done\nsomething worse to me, but they were there\nfor\nthe amount of time\nthat\nI believe\nthey were\nthere.\"\nR1904-05.\nNotably,\nin response\nto probing\nquestions\nabout whether Roe thought\ndifferently\nabout\nDoe, if he did not partake\nin the ketamine,\nRoe replied\n\"[Doe]\nread in a group chat about free\npussy upstairs\nand decided\nthat he wanted to participate\nin whatever was going on.\nI don't\nview\nhim as any better\nof a man, no.\"\nR1892.\n6\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n10 of 30\n\n--- Page 11 ---\nDoe's Testimony\nDoe testified\nabout receiving\nthe Snapchats and going to the Alumni room.\nR2804-2828.\nHe testified\nwhat he was thinking\nwhen he received\n\"free\npussy\" and the follow-up\n\"crazy\nwork\"\nmessage, explaining\nhe thought\nit meant the sender wasn't\nsure\nit was true\n(and that\nit would be\ncrazy\nif\nit were).\nId.;\nR2857.\nDoe claimed both that he was somewhatconcerned about\nbeing\nin the Alumni room and, simultaneously,\nthat he thought\n\"free\npussy\" was fake.\nR2816-2823.\nDoe compared his\nprior\ntimeline\nto the timestamps of the Snapchats\nto establish\nwhere he\nwas when he received\nthe \"free\npussy\" message and where he was when he responded with each\nmessage. R2814-17.\nDoe testified\nhe sent\nthe\nfirst\nmessage at 2:20 AMafter\nhad gone to the\nAlumni room; he explained\nhe went into\nthe Alumni room at 2:30 AM, directly\nafter\nsending\nthe\nsecond POVmessage at 2:29 AM. R2816-23, R2858.\nDoe admitted\nhe spoke to someone who\nclaimed to come from the room who confirmed\nthere was a \"girl\nin there\nwith\nthree\nother dudes,\"\nbut now claimed he was given no indication\nthere was sexual\nactivity\ngoing on inside.\nR2823-4,\nR2827-31.\nHe later\nanswered questions\nas to why he did not include\nin his proffered\ntimeline\nthe\nabove conversation,\nclaiming\nhe did not rememberand the \"Snapchat kind of opened myeyes to\nwhat happened.\"\nR2861.\nDoe recounted\nhis journey\nto the Alumni room and what he was\nthinking\nduring\nthat\ntime.\nR2823-27.\nHe claimed he knocked out of \"commoncourtesy\n...\nthere\nwas a female in the room with a couple\nother dudes\"\nbut,\nsomehow, not because of potential\nsexual\nactivity.\nR2831.\nDoe recounted\nhis memories of entering\nthe room, seeing Roe and others on the bed, and\nclaimed he did not see any evidence\nof sexual\nactivity\n(despite\nall of them being on the bed\ntogether\nin somelevel\nof undress)\nand claimed to have seen no drug use.\nR2838-39.\nHe asserted\nthe person answering the door was clothed\nand already\nhad a vape in his hand (the person\n7\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n11 of 30\n\n--- Page 12 ---\ntestified\notherwise)\nand that Roe was under a blanket.\nR2832-33.\nPanelist\nBao asked Doe for\nfurther\ndetails\nabout\nhis entering\nthe room.\nR2887-88.\nFinally,\nDoe testified\nas to why his attorney\nasked\nto sign a statement\nof cooperation,\nwhich\nseveral\npeople felt\nwas to ensure the two kept the same story\nabout\ntheir\ntrip\nto the Alumni\nroom.\nR2876-77.\nOther Relevant Hearing Testimony\nNumerous witnesses\ntestified\nregarding\nfacts\nrelated\nto Doe's\nintent\ngoing into\nthe\nAlumni room, and Doe's attorney\nwas allowed\nto cross-examine\nall of them.\none of the occupants\nof the Alumni room, testified\nthat Doe and\ncameto the door\nand \"peeked\"\nin the room and then just\n\"walked\nin.\"\nR2002-03.\nthought\nhe was undressed at\nthe time and had no memory of Doe asking\nfor\na vape.\nR2004-05, R2077.\nNotably,\nrecalled\neither\nDoe or\nasking\nto take ketamine off Roe's chest and at least\none of them doing so.\nR2007-11.\nDoe's attorney\ncross-examined\nasking him questions\nrelated\nto Doe's intent\nentering\nthe room, including\nasking whether anyone in the room had any notification\nother than\nthe Snapchats that Roe was naked, and asked about her state of dress before\nand after\nbeing\ncovered with\nthe\nsheets.\nR2080-81.\nDoe's attorney\nfurther\nasked\nwhat someone standing\nat\nthe door,\nprior\nto entering\nthe room, would have seen -\ni.e.,\nwould Doe have seen Roe naked or\nin the bed.\nR2082.\nAnother witness,\ntestified\nthat he understood Doe's message \"the alumni\nshit\nis not a\nbit.\nfirsthand\npov,\nnot a bit\"\nto meanDoe thought\nthe \"free\npussy\" message was real.\nR2321-23.\nDoe's attorney\nthen cross-examined\nto ascertain\nthe\nbasis\nfor\nthis\nbelief.\nR2324-25.\ntestified\nthat,\nin response\nto the \"free\npussy\" message, another\nfraternity\nmember\nmentioned rumors of an \"orgy occurring\nwithin\nthe house at that\npoint,\"\nand\nspecifically\n8\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n12 of 30\n\n--- Page 13 ---\nremembered the use of the word \"orgy\"\nand Doe being present\nfor\n(and possibly\noverhearing)\nthe\nexchange.\nR2370-75.\ntestified\nthat he went with Doe to the Alumni room, in response\nto the\nSnapchat message, but did not think Doe entered\n(he just\nremembered Doe in the room later\nwhen others\nwere discussing\ntaking\nketamine off Roe).\nR2370-75, R2387-88.\ntestified\nthat,\nin response\nto later\nrumors about what occurred\nin the Alumni room, Doe asked to be included\nin\nan apology message to Roe, which\nsent,\nexplaining\nto Roe that Doe was \"sorry\nand should\nhave never been in that room.\"\nR2571-73, R1149.\nDoe admitted\nto feeling\nthe need to apologize\nbut not the\nspecific\nremark.\nR2985-86.\nDoe's attorney\ncross-examined\nasking\nabout the\ncircumstances\nleading\nup to Doe entering\nthe room and the extent of his memories about Doe's\napology.\nR2772-2781.\nMtestified\nthat he went with Doe to the Alumni room to check onEand for Doe to\nvape (and that\nthey thought\nthe Snapchat was a joke).\nR2450-51, R2472-73.\nadmitted\nhe\nspoke about\nthe\n\"free\npussy\" message with Doe, and they speculated\nthat \"maybe it's\nnot a joke.\"\nR2472.\nfurther\nspeculated\nthat Doe sent\nthe\n\"firsthand\npov\" message as they entered\nthe\nAlumni room but claimed\nit was still\nsent\nin jest.\nR2475.\nadmitted\nthat when someone asked\nvia Snapchat if the \"Shop\nstill\nopen,\"\nand he replied\n\"Yeah\"\nand \"LFG,\"\nhe was still\nin the\nAlumni room with Doe. R2478-80, R2519.\nDoe's attorney\nthen cross-examined\non these\nsametopics\nand asked\nwhy he had decided\nto cooperate\ninitially\nwith Doe. R2529-2537.\nDoe's Attorney\nRaises Complaints\nAbout\nPanelist\nBao\nOnMay 15, 2025, when\nwas testifying,\nDoe's attorney\ncomplained\nthat he believed\nPanelist\nBao (\"Bao\")\nwas not paying\nattention.\nR3439.\nDuring\nthe next break,\nthe Hearing\nChair spoke to the panelists,\nwho each conveyed that\nthey were actively\nengaged, which\nthe\nChair shared with\nall\nhearing\nparticipants.\nBranchini\nAff.\n\u00b6 47; R3459.\n9\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n13 of 30\n\n--- Page 14 ---\nAround 1:50 PMthat\nsame day (after\nlunch),\nDoe's attorney\nsent\ne-mails\ncomplaining\nthat Bao appeared to be driving\nin a car and demandedan adjournment\nuntil\nshe stopped\ndriving.\nR3443-3454. A break was taken\nat 2:12 PM(R2526),\nand Bao explained\nto the Chair that\nshe\nhad tried\nto complete a short\ndrive\nover the lunch break but had been unable to find\na place\nto\nstop because of heavy traffic\n(but was still\nlogged on to participate).\nBranchini\nAff.\n\u00b6\u00b6 48-49.\nOver the break, Bao found a suitable\nplace\nto stop and continued\nactively\nparticipating\nin the\nhearing.\nId.\nThe next day, on May 16, 2025, Doe's counsel demanded\"a new Hearing Panel\nand for\nthe hearing\nto restart.\"\nR3455-56.\nOnMonday, May 19, 2025, the\nTitle\nIX Coordinator\nforwarded\nthe Hearing Chair's\nresponse\nto Doe's\nattorney.\nR3459-60.\nThe Chair explained\nthat\nall\nconcerns\nraised\non May 15\nwere addressed\nin real\ntime.\nId.\nThe Chair further\nexplained\nSection\n26.10 of the Procedures\nprovides\nthat\nshe maydeclare\na mishearing\n\"if\nthe process\nhas becomeirreparably\ntainted,\"\nwhich mayinclude\n\"circumstances\nduring\na hearing\nrendering\na panelist\nunsuitable\nfor\nthe\npanel.\"\nId.\nThe Chair found that\nthere was nothing\nto indicate\nthe hearing\nprocess had been\ntainted,\nlet\nalone\nirreparably,\nespecially\nsince\nall\nconcerns\nhad been \"immediately\nand directly\naddressed\"\nduring\nthe\nsession.\nR3459-60.\nDoe's Closing\nStatement\nIn a final,\nwritten\nclosing\nstatement,\nDoe carefully\nanalyzed\nthe testimony\nagainst\nhim in\nterms of why he went into\nthe room and what he did when he was in there -\ni.e.,\nwhere was he in\nthe room in relation\nto Roe and did he see her naked or engaged in sexual\nactivity.\nR3495-97.\nDoe specifically\ndiscussed\nthe evidence\nregarding\nhis\nintent\nwhen he decided\nto go into\nthe\nAlumni room.\nId.;\nsee also R3497 (\"I\nsimply responded to sophomoric Snapchat messages, went\nto go look\nfor\n[his\nfriend],\nfind\na new vape, and to see what \"Free Pussy\"\n... was all\nabout.\").\n10\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n14 of 30\n\n--- Page 15 ---\nIV.\nTHEHEARINGPANELDECISION\nOnAugust\n18, 2025,\nthe Hearing Panel issued a unanimous\ndecision.\nBranchini\nAff.\n\u00b6\n53; R3503-3601.\nThe Panel found Doe consistently\ntestified\nhe did not observe Roe naked and\ndid not partake\nin drug use, and then analyzed,\nin detail,\nhis prior\nexplanations\n(and his proffered\ntimeline)\nfor why he entered\nthe Alumni room and what he did when he got there,\nalong with\nvarious\nrelated\ntestimony.\nR3536-38.\nThe Panel found the evidentiary\nrecord\ninsufficient\nto\nestablish\nDoe ingested\nketamine off Roe's body (R3541),\nand, therefore,\nhe was not responsible\nfor Sexual Assault,\nand found that\nthe preponderance of evidence\nshowedRoe was aware, by her\nown account,\nthat\nshe was nude when Doe was in the room, so he was not responsible\nfor\nSexual\nExploitation.\nR3540.\nAt the same time,\nthe Panel considered\nSection\n3.2 of the Procedures,\nwhich\nprohibits\nattempting\nto commit prohibited\nconduct,\nand found Doe had attempted\nto commit Sexual\nExploitation\nwhen he entered\nthe Alumni room.\nR3540.\nThe Panel found the\n\"free\npussy\"\nmessage \"communicated\nan invitation\nfor\nothers\nto go to the alumni room, along with a reference\nto female sexual anatomy.\"\nR3539. And \"by [Doe's]\nown account,\nhe went to the room, at least\nin part,\nbecause of a Snapchat message indicating\nthere was 'free\npussy in alumni.'\"\nR3540.\nThe Panel found\n\"it more likely\nthan not that\n[Doe]\nunderstood that\nthe 1:42 a.m. message\nindicated\nsomekind of sexual\nsituation\ninvolving\na female\" and found his\nassertions\nthat he\nthought\nthe message was a joke \"incompatible\nwith\nhis account\nthat he was sufficiently\n'worried'\nabout what was happening in the room that he went to check on the situation.\"\nR3540-41.\nThe\nPanel\nalso took into\nconsideration\nDoe's \"not\na bit\"\nmessage and the\nfact he received\nconfirmation\nthere was a girl\npresent\nin the room before\nentering.\nR3541.\n11\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n15 of 30\n\n--- Page 16 ---\nThe Panel \"therefore\ndetermined by a preponderance of the evidence that\n[Doe]\nunderstood that\na female was likely\nnude and/or\nengaged in sexual\nactivity\nin the [room]\n...,\nand\nentered\nthe room on that\nbasis,\nintending\nto observe\nthe same.\" R3541.\nFinally,\nnoting\nthat Roe\ndid not invite\nDoe or have any idea he would be coming\nin response\nto the Snapchats,\nwhich she\nwas not aware of at the time,\nthe Panel found that Doe engaged in conduct directly\ntending\ntowards completion\nof sexual\nexploitation\nby entering\nthe room with\nthe\nintent\nto observe Roe\nnude or engaged in sexual\nactivity\nwithout\nher knowledge\nor consent,\neven if he ultimately\nfound\nher covered by a sheet and not in that moment engaged in sexual\nactivity.\nR3541.\nV.\nDOE'SAPPEAL\nDoe appealed\nthe Panel's\ndecision,\nraising\namong other\nissues\nBao's attention\nduring\ns testimony\nand the\nfact Doe was found responsible\nfor Attempting\nSexual Exploitation,\neven\nthough he was charged with Sexual Exploitation.\nDoe further\nargued that\nthe record was\ninsufficient\nfor\nthe Panel to find\nthat he had the\nrequisite\nintent\nto commit Attempted\nSexual\nExploitation.\nR3602-19.\nOnJanuary\n14, 2026,\nthe Appeal Panel unanimously\naffirmed\nthe Hearing Panel's\ndecision.\nR3629-30.\nThe Panel reasoned that\nthe time Bao was in the car was a \"substantially\nde\nminimis\namount of time\nin a hearing\nthat\nspanned many hours and multiple\ndays,\"\nand that\nthe\nissue was promptly\naddressed,\nconcluding\nthe Chair appropriately\nexercised\nher discretion.\nR3629.\nThe Panel noted the language in the Notice of Formal Complaint\nthat\n\"clearly\nnotified\nyou that\nadditional\nviolations\nmight be identified\nthroughout\nthe process,\"\nand noted that\nthe\nFormal Complaint\nclearly\n\"detailed\nthe factual\nallegations\nunderlying\nthe misconduct\nfor which\nyou were found responsible.\"\nId.\n12\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n16 of 30\n\n--- Page 17 ---\nVL\nDOECOMMENCEsTHs PROCEEDING\nOnMarch 30, 2026, Doe commencedthis\nproceeding,\nasking\nthe Court to annul\nthe\nmisconduct\nfinding\nand to issue\na declaratory\njudgment,\npursuant\nto CPLR\u00a7 3001,\nthat\nCornell\nmisapplied\nits\npolicies\nand acted in an arbitrary\nand capricious\nmanner\n3\nSpecifically,\nDoe\nargues Cornell\nfailed\nto follow\nits\nprocedures\nby finding\nhim responsible\nfor Attempting\nSexual\nExploitation,\nbut only giving\nhim notice\nof the Sexual Exploitation\ncharge, and that Bao's\nactions\nsomehow \"irreparably\ncompromised\"\nand \"tainted\"\nthe proceeding because she\nsupposedly missed critical\ntestimony\nin support\nof his\ndefenses.\nNotably,\nDoe does not\nchallenge\nthe Hearing Panel's\nfindings\nof fact\nor responsibility.\nPetition\n\u00b6 21.\nARGUMENT\nL\nCORNELL'SCONDUCTPROCEEDINGSANDDETERMINATIONSAREENTITLEDTO\nDEFERENCEUNDERARTICLE78\nCornell's\ndisciplinary\ndecisions\nare subject\nto review under Article\n78 only\nto determine\nwhether the university\nsubstantially\ncomplied with\nits own policies\nand procedures\nand had a\nrational\nbasis\nfor\nits\ndecisions.\nDoe v. Cornell\nUniv.,\n163 A.D.3d\n1243, 1245 (3d Dep't\n2018);\nHymanv. Cornell\nUniv.,\n82 A.D.3d\n1309, 1310 (3d Dep't\n2011);\nsee also Kickertz\nv. NewYork\nUniv.,\n25 N.Y.3d\n942, 944 (2015)\n(\"private\neducational\ninstitution\"\nimposing\ndisciplinary\naction\non student \"need only ensure\nthat\nits published\nrules\nare\n'substantially\nobserved'\")\n(citing\nTedeschi\nv. Wagner Coll.,\n49 N.Y.2d\n652, 660 (1980));\nVanHouten\nv. Mount St. Mary Coll.,\n137\nA.D.3d\n1293, 1295 (2d Dep't 2016) (\"Private\nschools\nare afforded\nbroad discretion\nin\n3 Doe's\ndeclaratory\njudgment claim can only be asserted\nthrough\na plenary\naction.\nSee Nicholas\nv. Martuscello,\n245\nA.D.3d 1055, 1056-57 (3d Dep't\n2026).\nFurther,\nbecause Doeseeks Article\n78 relief\nin the form of declaratory\njudgment,\nCornell\nmaintains\nthere\nis no basis\nfor\nthis\nCourt to convert\nthis\nspecial\nproceeding\ninto\na hybrid\naction\nunder CPLR103(c).\nSee Sutherland\nv. Glennon, 221 A.D.2d 893, 894 (3d Dep't\n1995) (declaratory\njudgment\nportion\nof hybrid\ncase should have been converted\nto an Article\n78 proceeding\nbecause it merely requested\nannulment\nof the respondent's\ndetermination);\nCustom Topsoil,\nInc.\nv. City of Buffalo,\n63 A.D.3d 1511, 1511 (4th\nDep't\n2009) (hybrid\naction properly\ntreated\nas only an Article\n78 proceeding\nbecause declaratory\njudgment action\nnot appropriate\nprocedural\nvehicle\nfor challenging\nunderlying\ndetermination).\n13\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n17 of 30\n\n--- Page 18 ---\nconducting\ntheir\nprograms, including\ndecisions\ninvolving\nthe\ndiscipline,\nsuspension\nand\nexpulsion\nof\n. . . students.\").\nSubstantial\ncompliance does not require\nperfection\nor strict\nadherence.\nSeeDoe v.\nSkidmore Coll.,\n152 A.D.3d\n932, 935 (3d Dep't 2017) (\"Perfect\nadherence to every procedural\nrequirement\nis not necessary\nto demonstrate\nsubstantial\ncompliance[.]\").\nAnd, when a\ndetermination\n\"is\nsupported\nby a rational\nbasis,\nit must be sustained\neven if the reviewing\ncourt\nwould have reached a different\nresult.\"\nCDEElec.,\nInc.\nv. Rivera,\n124 A.D.3d\n1178, 1180 (3d\nDep't\n2015).\nMoreover,\nto challenge\nsuccessfully\na conduct decision,\na petitioner\nalso needs to\nestablish\na resulting\nprejudice.\nZartoshti\nv. Columbia\nUniv.,\n79 A.D.3d\n470, 471 (1st Dep't\n2010) (upholding\ndisciplinary\ndecision\nagainst\nstudent where university\ndeviated\nfrom policy\nbut\nstudent\ncould\ndemonstrate\nno prejudice).\nFinally,\nuniversities\nin NewYork,\nparticularly\nprivate\nuniversities,\nare afforded\na high\nlevel\nof deference\nregarding\ninternal\ndisciplinary\nproceedings,\nand complaints\nabout general\nfairness\nor legal\ndue process\nalone\nare not enough to disturb\nstudent conduct decisions.\nSee\nSkidmore Coll.,\n152 A.D.3d\nat 934-35 (\"Petitioner's\nclaims\nas to fundamental\nfairness\nare\nwithout\nmerit\nas respondent\nis not a public\nuniversity.\nThus,\nits\nrelationship\nwith\nits\nstudents\nis\nessentially\na private\none such that\n...\nits\ndisciplinary\nproceedings\ndo not implicate\nthe full\npanoply of due process\nguarantees.\")\n(internal\ncitations\nand quotations\nomitted);\nRensselaer Soc.\nof Eng'rs\nv. Rensselaer Polytechnic\nInst.,\n260 A.D.2d\n992, 993 (3d Dep't\n1999) (defining\nstandard\nof review\nfor\nArticle\n78 petition\nand noting\ncontentions\nof unfairness\nare \"misplaced\nwithin\nthe appropriate\ncontext\nof our review\").\n14\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n18 of 30\n\n--- Page 19 ---\nH.\nDOE'SCOMPLAINTSABOUTLACKOFNOTICEAREMERITLESS\nA.\nCornell\nSubstantially\nComplied With\nIts\nProcedures\nDoe argues Cornell\nviolated\nits Policy\n6.4 by finding\nhim responsible\nfor Attempting\nSexual Exploitation\neven though the university\nnever included\n\"Attempting\nto Commit\nProhibited\nConduct\"\nas a specific\ncharge.\nSuch an argument\nis meritless\nand flies\nin the face of\nthe record\nbefore\nthis\nCourt.\nDoe was served with\nthree\nNotices\nof Formal Complaint\nthat\noutlined\nthe\nspecific\nalleged\nprohibited\nconduct at issue\n(Sexual\nAssault\nand Sexual Exploitation)\nand the underlying\nfactual\nallegations\nrelated\nto that\nmisconduct.\nSee supra 2-3.\nParticularly\nrelevant,\nDoe was informed\nthat he was being accused of seeing\nthe\n\"free\npussy\" message and deciding\nto go to the Alumni\nroom for\nthe purpose of observing\nRoe naked and/or\nengaging in sexual\nactivity\n(and without\nher\nknowledge\nor permission).\nSee supra\nid.\nDoe was also\nnotified\nagain of these factual\nallegations\nand the alleged\nprohibited\nconduct in the Notice of Hearing.\nSeesupra\n5.\nSignificantly,\nthe\nthree\nNotices\nof Formal Complaint\nall warned Doe that\n\"[t]he\nUniversity\nmayhold\nthe Respondents accountable\nfor\nviolations\nof Policy\n6.4 and other policies\nthat\nare not referenced\nin the Formal Complaint\nbut are learned\nabout from evidence,\ntestimony,\nor admissions\nduring\nthe\ninvestigation\nand adjudication\nprocess.\"\nSee supra 2-3.\nFrom the very\nbeginning of the process, Doe was informed he could be found responsible\nfor any additional\nPolicy\n6.4 violation,\nlet\nalone the attempt\nof prohibited\nconduct specifically\nidentified.\nThe purpose of the notice\nrequirements\n- whether under the Formal Complaint\nor Notice\nof Hearing -\nis to allow respondents\nsufficient\nnotice\nof what will\nbe the focus of the\nmatter:\nthis\nincludes\nalleged\nprohibited\nconduct,\nbut equally\nimportant\nare the underlying\nfacts.\nSee,\ne.g.,\nBranchini\nAff.,\nEx. 2 (Procedures),\nSection\n18 (explaining\nNotice should\ninclude,\nif possible,\ndate,\ntime,\nand location,\nalong with\nfactual\nallegations\npertaining\nto prohibited\nconduct).\nA\n15\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n19 of 30\n\n--- Page 20 ---\nrequirement\nthat\nthe university\nmust include\na pro forma notice\nthat\nfor any asserted\ncharge the\nrespondent\ncould be found responsible\nfor\nattempt\nrather\nthan the completion\nof such conduct\nserves no purpose and provides\nno substantive\nnotice,\nparticularly\nwhere the underlying\nfacts\nand\nelements\nof the offense\nare the samefor both charges.\nMoreover,\nperfection\nis not the standard upon which\nthis Court reviews\nCornell's\nactions.\nThe fact\nthat Attempting\nSexual Exploitation\nwas not included\nas a specific\ncharge does not\nmean Cornell\nfailed\nto substantially\ncomply with\nits\npolicies\nand procedures,\nin form or\nsubstance.\nDoe was on notice\nof what he was alleged\nto have done, the specific\nrelated\nfacts,\nand\nwhat prohibited\nconduct was at issue.\nSee Skidmore\nColl.,\n152 A.D.3d\nat 935 (\"Perfect\nadherence to every procedural\nrequirement\nis not necessary\nto demonstrate\nsubstantial\ncompliance\n[with\nprocedures]\").\nFinally,\nit bears noting\nthat, by Doe's\nlogic,\nit would not have been arbitrary\nand\ncapricious\nif the Hearing Panel found him responsible\nfor\nactual\nSexual Exploitation\nbecause the\nuniversity\nwould have ostensibly\ncomplied with\nits\nnotice\npolicies,\nbut\nit was arbitrary\nand\ncapricious\nfor\nthe Panel\nto determine\n(correctly)\nthat\nthe evidence\nestablished\nhe was only\nresponsible\nfor\nthe\nlesser\ncharge.\nB.\nThe Elements of Sexual Exploitation\nand Attempting\nSexual Exploitation\nAre the Same\nDoe repeatedly\nargues the elements\nof attempting\nprohibited\nconduct and the actual\nprohibited\nconduct are different.\nThey are not.\nAny analysis\nof \"attempt\"\nis necessarily\ncontingent\non the elements of the actual\nconduct.\nUnder Section\n3.2 of the Procedures,\na person \"attempts\nto commit prohibited\nconduct\nif,\nwith\nthe\nintent\nto commit such conduct,\nthat person engages in conduct directly\ntending\ntoward\ncompletion\nof the prohibited\nconduct\" (emphasis added).\nBranchini\nAff.,\nEx. 2 at 4.\nThis\ndefinition\nrequires\nthe elements\nof 1)\n\"intent\"\nand 2) engaging in conduct \"directly\ntending\n16\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n20 of 30\n\n--- Page 21 ---\ntoward completion\"\nof the act.\nId.\nPut another\nway, the recipient\nneeds the same intent\nas the\nprohibited\nconduct and engages in the sameacts and activities\nnecessary\nto complete the\nprohibited\nconduct.\nUnder Section\n3.6 of the Procedures,\n\"Sexual Exploitation\"\nis defined\nas, among other\nacts,\n\"intentionally\n...\n[o]bserving\nanother person when that person is nude or engaged in sexual\nactivity\nwithout\nthe knowledge and consent\nof the person observed or allowing\nanother\nto\nobserve\nconsensual\nsexual\nactivity\nwithout\nthe knowledge and consent of all\nparties\ninvolved.\"\nBranchini\nAff.,\nEx. 2 at 7 (emphasis added).\nThe key inquiry\nhere remains the same: it revolves\naround Doe's\nintentions,\nfrom the\ntime he received\nthe \"free\npussy\" message until\nthe time he entered\nthe Alumni room.\nPut\nanother way, the relevant\nquestion\nasks why he went into\nthe room that\nnight.\nAnd Doe and his\nattorney\nwere on notice\nof this\ncentral\nissue\nfrom the very first\nNotice of Formal Complaint.\nInterestingly\nenough, Doe's owncounsel\nhas a webpagedevoted to Cornell\nand Policy\n6.4.4\nThere is even a section\non attempted\nconduct,\nin which counsel\nexplains\nthe following:\nCornell's\nPolicy\n6.4\ncontemplates\nan attempt,\nor uncompleted\ncommission\nof\nsome prohibited\nconduct.\nAttempting\nto commit prohibited\nconduct includes\nsituations\nin which\na person intends\nto engage in prohibited\nconduct,\nand that\nperson does something,\ntakes some action,\nthat\nleads\ntoward the completion\nof\nthe\nprohibited\nconduct\nwithout\nactually\ncompleting\nthe\noffense.\nThis\nmight\ninclude\nan offensive\nor otherwise\nprohibited\nmessage through\nsocial\nmedia or\ntext\nwhich\nis\nsent,\nbut\nfor\nwhatever\nreason\nnever\nactually\nreceived\nby the\nintended\nrecipient.\nId.\n(emphasis added).\nThe hypothetical\nproffered\nabove, with a text\nmessage sent but not\nreceived,\nseems quite\nanalogous to Doe's\nsituation,\nwhere he appears\nto have entered\na room for\n4 https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/practice-areas/ny-college-arrests-title-ix-disciplinary-hearings/cornell-arrests-\ndisciplinary-hearing-title-ix-misconduct-investi/prohibited-conduct-and-definitions-under-cornell-s-title-ix-poli/,\nlast\nvisited\nJuly\n17, 2026.\n17\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n21 of 30\n\n--- Page 22 ---\na specific\npurpose but through accident\nor happenstance did not succeed.\nC.\nDoe WasNot Blindsided\nor Prejudiced\nDespite\nthe fact Doe had the\nrequisite\nnotice,\nhe maintains\nhe was the victim\nof a \"bait-\nand-switch,\"\nclaiming\nhe was somehow deprived\nof the opportunity\nto defend himself\nfully.\nNothing\ncould be further\nfrom the\ntruth\nbecause the record\nis clear\nthat he and his attorney\nrepeatedly\nand consistently\nattacked\nthe\nassertion\nthat he entered\nthe Alumni room with\nthe\nintent\nof observing\nRoe in somestate of undress\nor engaging in sexual\nactivity.\nDoe challenged\nthe element of intent\nby claiming\n1) he was unaware whether sexual\nactivity\nwas happening in the room, 2) was concerned about\nwho he thought\nwas in the\nroom, and 3) wanted a vape.\nSee supra 3-5.\nTo support\nthis\nmulti-faceted\ndefense, Doe\nsubmitted\na detailed\ntimeline\nfrom the time he received\nthe first\nSnapchat message through\nentering\nthe room.\nSee supra 4. He secured the initial\ncooperation\nof\nwhowas with him\nduring\nthis key period\nof time.\nSee supra\nid.\nHe spent hours\ntestifying\nabout every aspect of\nwhat happened after\nhe received\nthe Snapchat message - what he was thinking,\nwhy he replied\nwith\nthe responses he did,\nwhere he was when he sent such responses;\nhe even explained\nwhy he\nknocked on the door and what he sawwhen he entered\nthe room.\nSeesupra 7-8.\nHis counsel\nalso cross-examined numerous witnesses,\nattempting\nto buttress\nthis\ndefense, and rebut\ntestimony\ntending\nto establish\nDoe's\nintent.\nSeesupra 6, 8-9.\nIn truth,\nDoe was found responsible\nfor Attempting\nSexual Exploitation,\nnot because he\nwas somehow denied an opportunity\nto raise\na relevant\ndefense\nregarding\nhis\nintent,\nbut because\nthe Hearing Panel found\nit more likely\nthan not that he entered\nthe Alumni room, after\nreceiving\nthe Snapchat message(s),\nwith the expectation\nRoe would be naked or engaged in sexual\nactivity\n(which he admitted\nwas largely\nconfirmed by an individual\ndirectly\nbefore\nhe entered\nthe room).\nSeesupra\n11-12.\nThe Panel found his\nassertions\nthat he thought\nthe message was a joke\n18\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n22 of 30\n\n--- Page 23 ---\n\"incompatible\"\nwith\nhis account\nthat he felt\nthe need to check on what was happening in the\nroom.\nSee id.\nDoe was provided\nevery\nopportunity\nto challenge\nhis alleged\nintent,\nand he took\nevery\nopportunity\nto do so.\nWhile Doe claims\nhe would have presented\nadditional\ndefenses\n(Petition\n\u00b6 33), he fails\nto\nidentify\na single\none in his\nPetition.\nHe simply was not prejudiced\nby supposedly failing\nto be\nreminded that he could be found responsible\nfor Attempting\nSexual Exploitation.\nSee Zartoshti,\n79 A.D.3d\nat 471 (upholding\nstudent\ndisciplinary\ndecision\nwhere university\narguably\ndeviated\nfrom \"literal\ncompliance\"\nwith policy\nbecause student could demonstrate\nno prejudice).\nD. Doe Cites NoApplicable\nNewYork Authority\nInstead of citing\nany analogous or binding\nauthority,\nDoe cites\ncases from outside\nof New\nYork.\nSetting\naside their\nlimited\nprecedential\nvalue,\nthey\nare entirely\ninapposite\nand\ndistinguishable\nbecause none of them concern the instant\nquestion\nof whether a student\nshould\nhave received\nnotice\nof the related\ncharge of attempting\nprohibited\nconduct.\nSee,\ne.g., Doe v.\nW.\nNewEngland\nUniv.,\n228 F. Supp.\n3d.\n154,\n175 (D. Mass. 2016) (review\nboard improperly\nfound\nstudent\nresponsible\nbased on different\ndefinition\nof misconduct from separate\npolicy,\nand neither\ndefinitions\nnor separate\npolicy\nwere included\nin applicable\nrules\nhandbook or notices\nprovided\nto\nstudent);\nDoe v. Brandeis\nUniv.\n177 F. Supp. 3d 561, 603-04 (D. Mass. 2016) (student\nimproperly\n\"expected to defend himself\nagainst\nthe vague and open-ended charge\nthat he had\nIumerous\ninappropriate,\nnonconsensual sexual\ninteractions'\"\nrelated\nto a \"lengthy\nand\napparently\ntangled\nrelationship\nthat went on for\nnearly\ntwo years\");\nDoe v.\nTr. of Dartmouth\nColl.,\n615 F. Supp. 3d 47, 61-62 (D.N.H.\n2022) (plaintiff\nprevailed\nonly\nat motion\nto dismiss\nstage,5\nwith Court ruling\nit was possible\nhe was prejudiced\nby not receiving\nnotice\nof sexual\n5 The Court\nlater\ndismissed\nplaintiff's\nnotice\nclaim\nat summaryjudgment because he failed\nto meet his burden\nbeyond the pleading\nstage.\n731 F. Supp. 3d 222, 243-44 (D.N.H.\n2024).\n19\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n23 of 30\n\n--- Page 24 ---\ntouching\ncharge because the charge of \"sexual\nintercourse\"\nwas defined\ndifferently\nfrom \"sexual\ntouching\");\nFellheimer\nv. Middlebury\nColl.,\n869 F. Supp. 238, 246-47 (D. Vt.\n1994)\n(plaintiff\ngiven notice\nof one charge,\ndescribed\neither\nas \"rape\"\nor \"sexual\nassault,\"\nbut not provided\nnotice\nof \"separate\nand distinct\ncharge of\n...\ndisrespect\nof persons,\"\nnor was he provided\nnotice\nof what\nspecific\nalleged\nconduct in terms of underlying\nfactual\nallegations\nsupposedly constituted\n\"disrespect\nof persons\").\nThe fact Doe does not cite\na single NewYork authority\nin support\nof his notice\nargument\nis not surprising\nbecause no such case law exists.\nCourts\nin NewYork have only\nannulled\ndisciplinary\nfindings\nfor\nlack of notice\nin egregious\nand prejudicial\ncircumstances,\nones that\nare\nsimply not present\nhere.\nSee,\ne.g.,\nSkidmore\nColl.,\n152 A.D.3d\nat 935-37 (formal\ncomplaint\nprovided \"no factual\nallegations\nidentifying\nthe specific\nactions\nthat were alleged\nto be policy\nviolations\"\nand instead provided only recitations\nof charges, which court noted provided\nlittle\nnotice\nvalue);\nEbert\nv.\nYeshiva\nUniv.,\n780 N.Y.S.2d\n283, 286 (Sup.\nCt. N.Y.\nCnty.\n2004) (despite\nrules\nrequiring\nreasonable\nadvance notice\nof interview\nto formulate\nan \"oral\nand written\ndefense,\"\npetitioner\nonly informed of charges and provided copy of disciplinary\nrules\nat outset\nof\nmeeting and informed meeting would be sole\nopportunity\nto respond).\nSkidmore College\nis instructive\nhere:\nthe Third Department\nactually\ndiscounted\nthe value\nof simply\nreciting\nspecific\nmisconduct\ncharges because such charges may\"include\na broad range\nof actions\nthat would be impossible\nfor an accused student\nto discern\nwhat conduct they were\nalleged\nto have committed.\"\nInstead,\nthe Court explained\nthe\nfactual\nallegations\nprovide\nthe\nmore important\nand useful\nnotice.\nSee Skidmore\nColl.,\n152 A.D.3d\nat 935-37.\nNotably,\nDoe does not challenge\nthe\nsufficiency\nof the Hearing Panel's\nfactual\nfindings\nor the\nfact\nthe Panel's\nresponsibility\nfinding\nwas rational,\nbased on the hearing\nrecord.\nAnd it\nis\n20\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n24 of 30\n\n--- Page 25 ---\nundisputed\nthat\nthe findings\nat the center of the Hearing Panel's\nresponsibility\ndetermination\nfor\nDoe are directly\nrelated\nto the\nfactual\nallegations\nnoticed\nrepeatedly\nby Cornell\nover the course\nof the underlying\nproceeding.\nIt simply\ndefies\ncommonsense to argue that\na rote\nrecitation\nof\nthe attempt\nlanguage would have provided any real\nnotice\nvalue\nto Doe or that\nthe lack of\nreference\nto this\nrelated\nbut lesser\ncharge was arbitrary\nand capricious.\nHI.\nTHEHEARINGCHAIR'SDECISIONNor To DECLAREAMISHEARINGWAsNor\nARBITRARYANDCAPRICIOUS\nDoe claims\nin his\nPetition\nthat Bao's supposed inattention\non May 15, 2025,\nincluding\nthe\nshort\ntime\nshe spent in a car, somehow \"irreparably\ncompromised\"\nand \"tainted\"\nthe hearing\nbecause she missed key testimony\nfrom\nPetition\n\u00b6\u00b6 40-41.\nThe record\nof the underlying\nproceeding not only does not support\nthese arguments but\ndirectly\nrefutes\nthem.\nFirst\nand foremost,\nthe Hearing Panel decision\nwas unanimous among the\nthree\npanelists.\nSeesupra\n11. No matter what Bao decided, Doe still\nwould have been found\nresponsible\nbased on the other two Panelists.\nFurther,\nthe Hearing Chair diligently\naddressed\nall\nconcerns\nraised\nin real\ntime,\nand the\nChair correctly\nexercised\nher discretion\nby refusing\nto\nstart\nover an entire\neight-party\nmisconduct\nproceeding\nthat would span 12 days when there was no legitimate\nbasis\nto do so. The Panelists\nconfirmed\nthey were actively\npaying\nattention\nduring\nthe morning\nsession on May 15, 2025.\nSee\nsupra\n9.\nThe time Bao spent in the\ncar, where she was still\nobserving\nthe proceeding,\namounted\nto only\n15 pages of a 1,732 page hearing\ntranscript.\nR2511-26.\nIf that were not enough, directly\nafter\nthat\nbrief\nperiod,\nDoe's attorney\nbegan cross-examining\nrehashing\nthe\nearlier\ntestimony\nand raising\nnumerous issues\nrelated\nto Doe's defenses,\nincluding\nthe \"pov\"\ntext Doe sent,\ntheir\njourney\nto the Alumni room, and what\nsawwhen they entered the room, for\nall of which Bao\nwas present\nand attentive.\nR2529-40.\n21\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n25 of 30\n\n--- Page 26 ---\nUnder Cornell's\nProcedures,\nthe Hearing Chair has full\ndiscretion\nunder Section\n26.10\nregarding\nadjournments and whether to declare\na \"mishearing.\"\nSee Branchini\nAff.,\nEx.\n2, \u00a7\n26.10.1\n(\"The Hearing Chair mayadjourn\nthe hearing\n[based on the potential\nunavailability\nof a\nparticipant\nand] may also\ndeclare\na 'mishearing'\nif the process\nhas becomeirreparably\ntainted\n(e.g.,\nprejudicial\nconduct by an advisor,\ncircumstances\nduring\na hearing\nrendering\na panelist\nunsuitable\nfor\na panel,\netc.).\").\nNewYork courts\nconsistently\ndefer to a Hearing Chair's\ndecisions\nwhen such decisions\nare within\nthe\ndiscretion\nvested under the applicable\npolicies,\nincluding\nin prior\ncases involving\nCornell\nand Policy\n6.4.\nSee,\ne.g., Doe v. Cornell\nUniv.,\n70 N.Y.S.3d\n750, 760-62 (Sup.\nCt.\nTompkins\nCnty.\n2017),\naff'd,\n163 A.D.3d\n1243 (2018)\n(refusing\nto disturb\nHearing Chair's\ndiscretionary\ndecisions\nregarding\nwhether to ask certain\nquestions\nand regarding\nwhether to have\nwitness\ntestify);\nHymanv.\nCornell\nUniv.,\n82 A.D.3d\n1309, 1310 (3d Dep't 2011) (rejecting\nargument Hearing Chair abused discretion\nin overruling\npetitioner's\nobjections\nduring\nhearing);\nsee also Doe 1 v. Syracuse Univ.,\n188 A.D.3d\n1570, 1572-73 (4th\nDep't 2020) (university\nconduct board chairperson's\ndenial\nof request\nto pose certain\nquestions\nto witnesses\nand to call\ncertain\nwitnesses\nat hearing\nwere discretionary\ndeterminations\nreserved\nfor\nchairperson).\nClearly,\nthe Hearing Chair had full\ndiscretion\nin terms of responding\nto complaints\nfrom\nDoe's attorney\nregarding\nBao and had full\ndiscretion\nin terms of declaring\na mishearing.\nThose\ndecisions\n- as a matter\nof law and, given the particular\ncircumstances\nhere - are entitled\nto\ndeference.\n22\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n26 of 30\n\n--- Page 27 ---\nCONCLUSION\nFor all\nthe reasons\nset forth\nabove,\nCornell\nrespectfully\nsubmits\nthat\nthis Court should\ndismiss\nthe Petition,\ntogether\nwith such other and further\nrelief\nas the Court deemsappropriate.\nDated:\nJuly\n17, 2026\n/s/ AdamG. Pence\nADAMG. PENCE\nTHOMASHOEHNER\nRYANT. NELSON\nCornell\nUniversity\nOffice\nof General Counsel\n118 Sage Place\nIthaca, NY 14850\n(607) 255-5124\nAttorneys\nfor Respondent Cornell\nUniversity\n23\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n27 of 30\n\n--- Page 28 ---\n202.8-b CERTIFICATION\nI hereby certify\nthat\nthe foregoing\ndocument\nis 6,983 words and in compliance with\n22 NYCRR202.8-b(c).\nDated:\nJuly\n17, 2026\n/s/ AdamG. Pence\nADAMG. PENCE,ESQ.\n24\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n28 of 30\n\n--- Page 29 ---\nADDENDUM\nScreenshot\nof Initial\nSnapchat\nConversation\n(R1515)\nChi Phi Actives\nt-\n8'\no\nsy in alum pu\nwork\n90 and is not afk soooon\nch\nphi\nnot a bit\nf rst person\np,\n.\nand wh\u00a1P it ou\n1\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n29 of 30\n\n--- Page 30 ---\nTranscript\nof Entire\nSnapchat Conversation\n(R1487)\n(1:42 AM): \"Free pussy in alum pu\"\n(Replying\nto\nat 2:19 AM): \"This\nis crazy work\"\n(2:19 AM): \"Free...\"\n(2:20 AM):\n'\nwent 7 min ago and is not afk sooooo\"\n(2:28\nAM): \"I fucking\nlove\nchi phi\"\n(2:28 AM): \"CHI PHIII\"\n(2:29 AM): \"the alumni\nshit\nis not a bit.\nfirst\nhand pov not a bit.\"\n(2:31\nAM): \"Like\nyou can walk in and whit\nit out rn\"\n(2:33\nAM): \"Type\"\n(2:35\nAM): *Sent Image of Roe that can be seen in video*\n(2:35\nAM): \"Shop\nstill\nopen? \"\n(2:35\nAM): \"Yeah \"\n(2:35\nAM): \"Yeah\"\nUnknown User (2:35\nAM): \"No way!\"\n(2:35\nAM): \"LFG\"\n(2:35\nAM):\n'\nlaying\nrn\"\n(2:36 AM): \"Nice.\nNice guys.\nIs myroom open?\"\n(2:36 AM): \"Lowkey he's cucking\nall of us\"\n(2:36 AM): \"Nym\"\n(Replying\nto\ns 1st 2:36 AMMessage;\n2:36 AM): \"Fuck off mid\"\n(2:36 AM): \"Kid\"\n(2:36 AM): \"I want my\nlicense\"\nUnknown User (Time Unknown):\n\"Are you guys at least\nnaked?\"\n(Time Unknown):\n\"Boys comewhip\nit out\"\n2\nCI2026-22102\nIndex #: EF2026-0292\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2026 04:06 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 48\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2026\n30 of 30","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/513/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/513"}