{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"Public administrative PDF \u2014 original entry #88","alternateName":"needs-review-d665c1fdf7-161704_2026_Jane_Doe_v_Cornell_University_Inc_et_al_AFFIDAVIT_OR_AFFIRM_88.pdf","caption":"","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/616/raw","datePublished":"2026-10-24T00:10:59+00:00","description":"","encodingFormat":"application/pdf","identifier":"616","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/616/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/616/index.md"},"name":"Public administrative PDF \u2014 original entry #88","ocrStatus":"ready","ocrText":"--- Page 1 ---\n1 \n \nSUPREME COURT \nSTATE OF NEW YORK                    COUNTY OF NEW YORK  \n \n \nJANE DOE, \n \n \n \n \n \nPetitioner, \n \n-against- \n \nCORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC., CHI PHI CHAPTER \nHOUSE ASSOCIATION, CHI PHI FRATERNITY, INC., \nCHI PHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, ALPHA BETA HOUSE \nCORPORATION OF DELTA DELTA DELTA, DELTA \nDELTA DELTA SORORITY, ZAREEN ENTERPRISE LLC \nd/b/a MOONIES BAR & NIGHTCLUB, MATTHEW \nINGALLS, JOHNATHAN NEWELL, WINSTON LEE, \nGILLIO LOPES, DIEGO SARABIA, SCOTT NORRIS,  \nSCOTT KRETZSCHMAR, JOHN DOE (FACULTY), JOHN \nDOE (ALUMNI), JOHN DOES (EXECUTIVE BOARD), and \nORAZIO PETITO, \n \n \n \n \n \nDefendants. \n \n \n \n \n \n \nATTORNEY \nAFFIRMATION OF \nJAMES C. KNOX IN \nSUPPORT OF MOTION \nTO DISMISS \n \n \nIndex No. 161704/2026\n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nJAMES C. KNOX, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York, affirms \nunder penalty of perjury the following:  \n1. \nI am an attorney with Hacker Murphy LLP, attorneys for Defendant Diego Sarabia.  \nI respectfully submit this Affirmation in Support of his motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR \n3211(a)(5) and (a)(7). \n2. \nAnnexed hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of the Plaintiff\u2019s complaint, \npreviously filed as NYSCEF Dkt. No. 71.  \n3. \nThis motion is supported by the Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to \nDismiss by Defendant Diego Sarabia, dated October 23, 206, which has been electronically filed \nand served contemporaneously with this Affirmation and the Notice of Motion (the \u201cMemo of \nLaw\u201d). \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/23/2026 07:51 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 88\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n1 of 4\n\n--- Page 2 ---\n2 \n \n4. \nIn the interest of brevity and avoiding repetition, I will not repeat the arguments in \nthe Memo of Law in this Affirmation. Instead, I respectfully refer the Court to the Memo of Law \nand incorporate it by reference. \n5. \nHowever, for record purposes, I will briefly note the arguments that are preserved \nand set forth in full in the Memo of Law. \n6. \nAs argued in Point I of the Memo of Law, plaintiff\u2019s Fifth, Sixth and Eight Causes \nof Action, alleging respectively the intentional torts of assault, battery and intentional infliction of \nemotional distress, are all barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR \n215 (3).  As plaintiff has brought her complaint almost two (2) years after the incident she \ncomplains of, those intentional tort claims are subject to dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5).   \n7. \nAs further argued in Point I of the Memo of Law, plaintiff has only alleged that \ndefendant kissed her without her consent and snorted ketamine off her body. Although plaintiff \nmakes reference to CPLR 213-c and CPLR 208, neither statute operates here to extend the ordinary \none-year statute of limitations. As to the former, none of the conduct defendant Sarabia is alleged \nto have committed constitutes the conduct described in any of the serious criminal offenses listed \nin CPLR 213-c, as required thereunder to extend the statute of limitations, and thus it is no remedy \nto plaintiff\u2019s tardy claims.  The latter statute, CPLR 208, although specifically cited by plaintiff in \nreference to her assault and battery claims, only applies to plaintiffs who were under eighteen (18) \nyears of age at the time of the complained of incident, and plaintiff pleads that she was twenty (20) \nyears of age at that time.  Lastly, there is no rationale under which plaintiff\u2019s claim for intentional \ninfliction of emotional distress is not subject to a one-year statute of limitations and, as such, it too \nmust be dismissed. \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/23/2026 07:51 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 88\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n2 of 4\n\n--- Page 3 ---\n3 \n \n8. \nAs argued in Point II of the Memo of Law, plaintiff\u2019s First, Sixth and Eighth Causes \nof action also must be dismissed because plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to set forth \nthe claims she asserts in those causes of action.  \na. Plaintiff\u2019s First Cause of Action sounding in negligence fails because plaintiff has \nnot properly pled any valid legal duty owed to her by defendant, instead arguing \nessentially that plaintiff had a duty of care to stop himself and others from \nassaulting, battering or intentionally inflicting emotional distress upon plaintiff, a \nfellow student, in the absence of any special duty or legal relationship.  There is no \nsuch legal duty under New York law. \nb. Plaintiff\u2019s Sixth Cause of Action alleging Assault fails because plaintiff pleads only \ncompleted contact by defendant Sarabia and pleads no conduct placing plaintiff in \nimminent apprehension of harmful contact sufficient to support a cause of action \nfor assault. \nc. Plaintiff\u2019s Eighth Cause of Action alleging intentional infliction of emotional \ndistress must be dismissed because it fails to allege any conduct falling outside of \nthe other, traditional tort claims asserted by plaintiff in her complaint, and as such \nit is impermissibly duplicative of those claims.  \nWHEREFORE, for the reasons summarized above and argued in full in the Memo of Law, \nthe motion should be granted, and the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice. \nI affirm this 23rd day of October, 2026, under penalties of perjury under the law of New \nYork, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, except as to matters \nalleged on information and belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true, and I understand \nthat this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law.  \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/23/2026 07:51 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 88\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n3 of 4\n\n--- Page 4 ---\n4 \n \nDATED: Albany, New York  \n \nOctober 23, 2026 \n \n \n \n \n \n \nRespectfully submitted, \n \n \n \nHACKER MURPHY, LLP \n \n \n \n_____________________________________  \nBy: James C. Knox \n      Alishah Bhimani \nAttorneys for Defendant Diego Sarabia \n \nOffice & P.O. Address \n \n22 Corporate Woods Boulevard, Suite 404 \n \nAlbany, NY  12211 \n \nTelephone:  518-274-5820 \n \njknox@hackermurphy.com  \nabhimani@hackermurphy.com \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/23/2026 07:51 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 88\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n4 of 4","text":"--- Page 1 ---\n1 \n \nSUPREME COURT \nSTATE OF NEW YORK                    COUNTY OF NEW YORK  \n \n \nJANE DOE, \n \n \n \n \n \nPetitioner, \n \n-against- \n \nCORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC., CHI PHI CHAPTER \nHOUSE ASSOCIATION, CHI PHI FRATERNITY, INC., \nCHI PHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, ALPHA BETA HOUSE \nCORPORATION OF DELTA DELTA DELTA, DELTA \nDELTA DELTA SORORITY, ZAREEN ENTERPRISE LLC \nd/b/a MOONIES BAR & NIGHTCLUB, MATTHEW \nINGALLS, JOHNATHAN NEWELL, WINSTON LEE, \nGILLIO LOPES, DIEGO SARABIA, SCOTT NORRIS,  \nSCOTT KRETZSCHMAR, JOHN DOE (FACULTY), JOHN \nDOE (ALUMNI), JOHN DOES (EXECUTIVE BOARD), and \nORAZIO PETITO, \n \n \n \n \n \nDefendants. \n \n \n \n \n \n \nATTORNEY \nAFFIRMATION OF \nJAMES C. KNOX IN \nSUPPORT OF MOTION \nTO DISMISS \n \n \nIndex No. 161704/2026\n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nJAMES C. KNOX, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York, affirms \nunder penalty of perjury the following:  \n1. \nI am an attorney with Hacker Murphy LLP, attorneys for Defendant Diego Sarabia.  \nI respectfully submit this Affirmation in Support of his motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR \n3211(a)(5) and (a)(7). \n2. \nAnnexed hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of the Plaintiff\u2019s complaint, \npreviously filed as NYSCEF Dkt. No. 71.  \n3. \nThis motion is supported by the Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to \nDismiss by Defendant Diego Sarabia, dated October 23, 206, which has been electronically filed \nand served contemporaneously with this Affirmation and the Notice of Motion (the \u201cMemo of \nLaw\u201d). \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/23/2026 07:51 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 88\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n1 of 4\n\n--- Page 2 ---\n2 \n \n4. \nIn the interest of brevity and avoiding repetition, I will not repeat the arguments in \nthe Memo of Law in this Affirmation. Instead, I respectfully refer the Court to the Memo of Law \nand incorporate it by reference. \n5. \nHowever, for record purposes, I will briefly note the arguments that are preserved \nand set forth in full in the Memo of Law. \n6. \nAs argued in Point I of the Memo of Law, plaintiff\u2019s Fifth, Sixth and Eight Causes \nof Action, alleging respectively the intentional torts of assault, battery and intentional infliction of \nemotional distress, are all barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR \n215 (3).  As plaintiff has brought her complaint almost two (2) years after the incident she \ncomplains of, those intentional tort claims are subject to dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5).   \n7. \nAs further argued in Point I of the Memo of Law, plaintiff has only alleged that \ndefendant kissed her without her consent and snorted ketamine off her body. Although plaintiff \nmakes reference to CPLR 213-c and CPLR 208, neither statute operates here to extend the ordinary \none-year statute of limitations. As to the former, none of the conduct defendant Sarabia is alleged \nto have committed constitutes the conduct described in any of the serious criminal offenses listed \nin CPLR 213-c, as required thereunder to extend the statute of limitations, and thus it is no remedy \nto plaintiff\u2019s tardy claims.  The latter statute, CPLR 208, although specifically cited by plaintiff in \nreference to her assault and battery claims, only applies to plaintiffs who were under eighteen (18) \nyears of age at the time of the complained of incident, and plaintiff pleads that she was twenty (20) \nyears of age at that time.  Lastly, there is no rationale under which plaintiff\u2019s claim for intentional \ninfliction of emotional distress is not subject to a one-year statute of limitations and, as such, it too \nmust be dismissed. \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/23/2026 07:51 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 88\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n2 of 4\n\n--- Page 3 ---\n3 \n \n8. \nAs argued in Point II of the Memo of Law, plaintiff\u2019s First, Sixth and Eighth Causes \nof action also must be dismissed because plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to set forth \nthe claims she asserts in those causes of action.  \na. Plaintiff\u2019s First Cause of Action sounding in negligence fails because plaintiff has \nnot properly pled any valid legal duty owed to her by defendant, instead arguing \nessentially that plaintiff had a duty of care to stop himself and others from \nassaulting, battering or intentionally inflicting emotional distress upon plaintiff, a \nfellow student, in the absence of any special duty or legal relationship.  There is no \nsuch legal duty under New York law. \nb. Plaintiff\u2019s Sixth Cause of Action alleging Assault fails because plaintiff pleads only \ncompleted contact by defendant Sarabia and pleads no conduct placing plaintiff in \nimminent apprehension of harmful contact sufficient to support a cause of action \nfor assault. \nc. Plaintiff\u2019s Eighth Cause of Action alleging intentional infliction of emotional \ndistress must be dismissed because it fails to allege any conduct falling outside of \nthe other, traditional tort claims asserted by plaintiff in her complaint, and as such \nit is impermissibly duplicative of those claims.  \nWHEREFORE, for the reasons summarized above and argued in full in the Memo of Law, \nthe motion should be granted, and the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice. \nI affirm this 23rd day of October, 2026, under penalties of perjury under the law of New \nYork, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, except as to matters \nalleged on information and belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true, and I understand \nthat this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law.  \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/23/2026 07:51 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 88\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n3 of 4\n\n--- Page 4 ---\n4 \n \nDATED: Albany, New York  \n \nOctober 23, 2026 \n \n \n \n \n \n \nRespectfully submitted, \n \n \n \nHACKER MURPHY, LLP \n \n \n \n_____________________________________  \nBy: James C. Knox \n      Alishah Bhimani \nAttorneys for Defendant Diego Sarabia \n \nOffice & P.O. Address \n \n22 Corporate Woods Boulevard, Suite 404 \n \nAlbany, NY  12211 \n \nTelephone:  518-274-5820 \n \njknox@hackermurphy.com  \nabhimani@hackermurphy.com \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/23/2026 07:51 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 88\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2026\n4 of 4","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/616/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/616"}