{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"161704_2026_Jane_Doe_v_Cornell_University_Inc_et_al_ADJOURNMENT_OF_MOTI_99.pdf","alternateName":"161704_2026_Jane_Doe_v_Cornell_University_Inc_et_al_ADJOURNMENT_OF_MOTI_99.pdf","caption":"161704_2026_Jane_Doe_v_Cornell_University_Inc_et_al_ADJOURNMENT_OF_MOTI_99.pdf","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/747/raw","datePublished":"2026-11-05T15:28:13+00:00","description":"161704_2026_Jane_Doe_v_Cornell_University_Inc_et_al_ADJOURNMENT_OF_MOTI_99.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf","identifier":"747","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/747/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/747/index.md"},"name":"161704_2026_Jane_Doe_v_Cornell_University_Inc_et_al_ADJOURNMENT_OF_MOTI_99","ocrStatus":"ready","ocrText":"--- Page 1 ---\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK \nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK \n \nJANE DOE, \nIndex No.: 161704/2026 \nMotion Seq. 3 \n \n \n \n \nAFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT  \nOF REQUEST FOR \nADJOURNMENT \n \nPlaintiff, \n                      -against- \n \nCORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC., CHI PHI CHAPTER \nHOUSE ASSOCIATION, CHI PHI FRATERNITY, \nINC., CHI PHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, ALPHA \nBETA HOUSE CORPORATION OF DELTA DELTA \nDELTA, DELTA DELTA DELTA SORORITY, \nZAREEN ENTERPRISE LLC d/b/a MOONIES BAR \n& NIGHTCLUB, MATTHEW INGALLS, \nJOHNATHAN NEWELL, WINSTON LEE, GILLIO \nLOPES, DIEGO SARABIA, SCOTT NORRIS, \nSCOTT KRETZSCHMAR, JOHN DOE (FACULTY), \nJOHN DOE (ALUMNI), JOHN DOES (EXECUTIVE \nBOARD), and ORAZIO PETITO, \n \nDefendants. \n \nJeremy A. Hellman, an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of New York, \naffirms the truth of the following under the penalties of perjury:  \n1.   \nI am a member of the law firm of Rheingold, Giuffra, Ruffo Plotkin & Hellman, \nLLP, counsel for Plaintiff in the within action. I am familiar with all pleadings and proceedings had \nherein. \n2.   \nThis affirmation is submitted in support of plaintiff\u2019s application for an \nadjournment of defendant DIEGO SARABIA\u2019s motion to dismiss (motion sequence 3), which was \nfiled on October 23, 2026, and was made returnable November 16, 2026. \n3.   \nOn October 27, 2026, I emailed the two attorneys for defendant a proposed \nstipulation to adjourn their motion to January 15, 2027, for a 60-day adjournment. As I received no \nresponse, I emailed again on October 29, 2026. On October 30, 2026, I received a response by \nemail that defendant would not agree to any adjournment of this motion. \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 09:37 AM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 99\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n1 of 5\n\n--- Page 2 ---\n4.   \nOn November 3, 2026, at 7:27 P.M., I informed counsel for movant-defendant via \nemail \nto \njknox@hackermurphy.com, \nabhimani@hackermurphy.com \nand \npcampione@hackermurphy.com, that I would be e-filing an application for an unconsented \nadjournment on November 5, 2026, at 9:30 A.M. \n5.   \nThis is a pre-answer motion to dismiss with complex issues of law that need to be \nexamined against our extensive complaint. We simply need more time to properly respond. \n6.   \nThe reason we ask for a full 60-day adjournment is that there are expected to be \nnumerous motions to dismiss filed by defendants. However, such motions are not yet even due \nsince we have given extensions of time to respond to the complaint to every defendant that \nrequested one. For instance, there are currently five stipulations on file extending the time for \ndefendants to respond to the complaint: SCOTT KRETZSCHMAR (December 7), DELTA \nDELTA DELTA (December 14), SCOTT NORRIS (December 15), GILLIO LOPES (December \n15) and CORNELL UNIVERSITY (December 18). While we do not know defendants\u2019 precise \nintentions, pre-answer motions to dismiss are common in matters such as these with numerous \ncauses of action. So far, the only defendant to answer is ZAREEN ENTERPRISE LLC.  \n7.   \nWhile the issues surrounding each defendant may vary, it is still far simpler to have \nthe motions returnable together, or at least in the same time frame. To simplify matters, when \nfeasible, we try to draft one affirmation in opposition to cover all outstanding motions, or at least \nfor those made on similar grounds. If we can, we hope to be able to do that here as well, if the \ncircumstances allow. Adjourning to the full 60-day limit of January 15, 2027, at least makes this \npotentially possible. \n8.   \nWe understand that Mr. Sarabia would like to get out of this case as soon as possible, \nbut that does not mean that common courtesies should be ignored. This is not a simple motion, as \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 09:37 AM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 99\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n2 of 5\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nmuch as he would like the court to believe; it is alleged that he was an active part of what happened \nto plaintiff. This affirmation is not the time to be foreshadowing our not-yet-made arguments in \nopposition. However, it is evident that per the allegations, he does not approach this with completely \nclean-hands, but argues that our claims against him - that he \u201cgrabbed her face and started kissing \nher\u201d (\u00b6165) and \u201cbegan pouring lines of Ketamine all over her body and snorting them.\u201d (\u00b6169) - \nare time barred. If this was a matter of mistaken identity perhaps that would be one thing, but we \nhave the right person, and the allegations are that he was absolutely involved. He does not deserve \na speed run to a dismissal that bypasses proper and courteous legal decorum.  \nWHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the return date of the instant motion be adjourned \nto at least January 15, 2027, with a provision that opposition papers be e-filed two weeks prior. \nPursuant to 22 NYCRR \u00a7 130-1.1, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts \nof New York State, and a member of Rheingold, Giuffra, Ruffo, Plotkin & Hellman, LLP, \ncertifies that, upon information and belief and reasonable inquiry, the contentions contained in \nthis document are not frivolous. \n \nI affirm this 5th day of November, 2026, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New \nYork, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that \nthis document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law. \n \nDated: New York, NY \n \nNovember 5, 2026  \n \n \n \n \n \nRHEINGOLD GIUFFRA RUFFO PLOTKIN & HELLMAN LLP \n \n \n \n \n \nAttorneys for Plaintiff \n \n \n \n \n \n     \n \n \n \n \n \nBy:  \nJeremy A. Hellman, Esq. \n \n \n \n \n \n551 Fifth Avenue, 29th Floor \n \n \n \n \n \nNew York, NY 10176 \n \n \n \n \n \nTel: (212) 684-1880 \n \n \n \n \n \nFax: (212) 689-8156 \n \n \n \n \n \njhellman@rheingoldlaw.com \n \n \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 09:37 AM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 99\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n3 of 5\n\n--- Page 4 ---\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK \nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK \n \nJANE DOE, \nIndex No.: 161704/2026 \nMotion Seq. 3 \n \n \n \n \nCERTIFICATE  \nOF COMPLIANCE \n \nPlaintiff, \n                      -against- \n \nCORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC., CHI PHI CHAPTER \nHOUSE ASSOCIATION, CHI PHI FRATERNITY, \nINC., CHI PHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, ALPHA \nBETA HOUSE CORPORATION OF DELTA DELTA \nDELTA, DELTA DELTA DELTA SORORITY, \nZAREEN ENTERPRISE LLC d/b/a MOONIES BAR \n& NIGHTCLUB, MATTHEW INGALLS, \nJOHNATHAN NEWELL, WINSTON LEE, GILLIO \nLOPES, DIEGO SARABIA, SCOTT NORRIS, \nSCOTT KRETZSCHMAR, JOHN DOE (FACULTY), \nJOHN DOE (ALUMNI), JOHN DOES (EXECUTIVE \nBOARD), and ORAZIO PETITO, \n \nDefendants. \n \nJeremy A. Hellman, an attorney duly admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New \nYork, hereby certifies pursuant to 22 NYCRR \u00a7202.8-b, that Microsoft Word was used in preparing \nthe instant document, and according to the Microsoft Word wordcount feature, the foregoing \ndocument contains 1,131 words, and therefore complies with the applicable word limit. \nPursuant to 22 NYCRR \u00a7 130-1.1, the undersigned certifies that, upon information and \nbelief and reasonable inquiry, the contentions contained in this document are not frivolous.  \n \nI affirm this 5th day of November, 2026, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of \nNew York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I \nunderstand that this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law. \n \nDated: November 5, 2026 \n \n \nNew York, NY \n \n \n \n \n \n \nRHEINGOLD GIUFFRA RUFFO PLOTKIN & HELLMAN LLP \n \n \n \n \n \nAttorneys for Plaintiff \n \n \n \n \n \n     \n \n \n \n \n \nBy: \nJeremy A. Hellman, Esq. \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 09:37 AM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 99\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n4 of 5\n\n--- Page 5 ---\n551 Fifth Avenue, 29th Floor \n \n \n \n \n \nNew York, NY 10176 \n \n \n \n \n \nTel: (212) 684-1880 \n \n \n \n \n \nFax: (212) 689-8156 \n \n \n \n \n \njhellman@rheingoldlaw.com \n \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 09:37 AM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 99\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n5 of 5","text":"--- Page 1 ---\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK \nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK \n \nJANE DOE, \nIndex No.: 161704/2026 \nMotion Seq. 3 \n \n \n \n \nAFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT  \nOF REQUEST FOR \nADJOURNMENT \n \nPlaintiff, \n                      -against- \n \nCORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC., CHI PHI CHAPTER \nHOUSE ASSOCIATION, CHI PHI FRATERNITY, \nINC., CHI PHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, ALPHA \nBETA HOUSE CORPORATION OF DELTA DELTA \nDELTA, DELTA DELTA DELTA SORORITY, \nZAREEN ENTERPRISE LLC d/b/a MOONIES BAR \n& NIGHTCLUB, MATTHEW INGALLS, \nJOHNATHAN NEWELL, WINSTON LEE, GILLIO \nLOPES, DIEGO SARABIA, SCOTT NORRIS, \nSCOTT KRETZSCHMAR, JOHN DOE (FACULTY), \nJOHN DOE (ALUMNI), JOHN DOES (EXECUTIVE \nBOARD), and ORAZIO PETITO, \n \nDefendants. \n \nJeremy A. Hellman, an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of New York, \naffirms the truth of the following under the penalties of perjury:  \n1.   \nI am a member of the law firm of Rheingold, Giuffra, Ruffo Plotkin & Hellman, \nLLP, counsel for Plaintiff in the within action. I am familiar with all pleadings and proceedings had \nherein. \n2.   \nThis affirmation is submitted in support of plaintiff\u2019s application for an \nadjournment of defendant DIEGO SARABIA\u2019s motion to dismiss (motion sequence 3), which was \nfiled on October 23, 2026, and was made returnable November 16, 2026. \n3.   \nOn October 27, 2026, I emailed the two attorneys for defendant a proposed \nstipulation to adjourn their motion to January 15, 2027, for a 60-day adjournment. As I received no \nresponse, I emailed again on October 29, 2026. On October 30, 2026, I received a response by \nemail that defendant would not agree to any adjournment of this motion. \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 09:37 AM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 99\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n1 of 5\n\n--- Page 2 ---\n4.   \nOn November 3, 2026, at 7:27 P.M., I informed counsel for movant-defendant via \nemail \nto \njknox@hackermurphy.com, \nabhimani@hackermurphy.com \nand \npcampione@hackermurphy.com, that I would be e-filing an application for an unconsented \nadjournment on November 5, 2026, at 9:30 A.M. \n5.   \nThis is a pre-answer motion to dismiss with complex issues of law that need to be \nexamined against our extensive complaint. We simply need more time to properly respond. \n6.   \nThe reason we ask for a full 60-day adjournment is that there are expected to be \nnumerous motions to dismiss filed by defendants. However, such motions are not yet even due \nsince we have given extensions of time to respond to the complaint to every defendant that \nrequested one. For instance, there are currently five stipulations on file extending the time for \ndefendants to respond to the complaint: SCOTT KRETZSCHMAR (December 7), DELTA \nDELTA DELTA (December 14), SCOTT NORRIS (December 15), GILLIO LOPES (December \n15) and CORNELL UNIVERSITY (December 18). While we do not know defendants\u2019 precise \nintentions, pre-answer motions to dismiss are common in matters such as these with numerous \ncauses of action. So far, the only defendant to answer is ZAREEN ENTERPRISE LLC.  \n7.   \nWhile the issues surrounding each defendant may vary, it is still far simpler to have \nthe motions returnable together, or at least in the same time frame. To simplify matters, when \nfeasible, we try to draft one affirmation in opposition to cover all outstanding motions, or at least \nfor those made on similar grounds. If we can, we hope to be able to do that here as well, if the \ncircumstances allow. Adjourning to the full 60-day limit of January 15, 2027, at least makes this \npotentially possible. \n8.   \nWe understand that Mr. Sarabia would like to get out of this case as soon as possible, \nbut that does not mean that common courtesies should be ignored. This is not a simple motion, as \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 09:37 AM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 99\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n2 of 5\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nmuch as he would like the court to believe; it is alleged that he was an active part of what happened \nto plaintiff. This affirmation is not the time to be foreshadowing our not-yet-made arguments in \nopposition. However, it is evident that per the allegations, he does not approach this with completely \nclean-hands, but argues that our claims against him - that he \u201cgrabbed her face and started kissing \nher\u201d (\u00b6165) and \u201cbegan pouring lines of Ketamine all over her body and snorting them.\u201d (\u00b6169) - \nare time barred. If this was a matter of mistaken identity perhaps that would be one thing, but we \nhave the right person, and the allegations are that he was absolutely involved. He does not deserve \na speed run to a dismissal that bypasses proper and courteous legal decorum.  \nWHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the return date of the instant motion be adjourned \nto at least January 15, 2027, with a provision that opposition papers be e-filed two weeks prior. \nPursuant to 22 NYCRR \u00a7 130-1.1, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts \nof New York State, and a member of Rheingold, Giuffra, Ruffo, Plotkin & Hellman, LLP, \ncertifies that, upon information and belief and reasonable inquiry, the contentions contained in \nthis document are not frivolous. \n \nI affirm this 5th day of November, 2026, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New \nYork, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that \nthis document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law. \n \nDated: New York, NY \n \nNovember 5, 2026  \n \n \n \n \n \nRHEINGOLD GIUFFRA RUFFO PLOTKIN & HELLMAN LLP \n \n \n \n \n \nAttorneys for Plaintiff \n \n \n \n \n \n     \n \n \n \n \n \nBy:  \nJeremy A. Hellman, Esq. \n \n \n \n \n \n551 Fifth Avenue, 29th Floor \n \n \n \n \n \nNew York, NY 10176 \n \n \n \n \n \nTel: (212) 684-1880 \n \n \n \n \n \nFax: (212) 689-8156 \n \n \n \n \n \njhellman@rheingoldlaw.com \n \n \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 09:37 AM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 99\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n3 of 5\n\n--- Page 4 ---\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK \nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK \n \nJANE DOE, \nIndex No.: 161704/2026 \nMotion Seq. 3 \n \n \n \n \nCERTIFICATE  \nOF COMPLIANCE \n \nPlaintiff, \n                      -against- \n \nCORNELL UNIVERSITY, INC., CHI PHI CHAPTER \nHOUSE ASSOCIATION, CHI PHI FRATERNITY, \nINC., CHI PHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, ALPHA \nBETA HOUSE CORPORATION OF DELTA DELTA \nDELTA, DELTA DELTA DELTA SORORITY, \nZAREEN ENTERPRISE LLC d/b/a MOONIES BAR \n& NIGHTCLUB, MATTHEW INGALLS, \nJOHNATHAN NEWELL, WINSTON LEE, GILLIO \nLOPES, DIEGO SARABIA, SCOTT NORRIS, \nSCOTT KRETZSCHMAR, JOHN DOE (FACULTY), \nJOHN DOE (ALUMNI), JOHN DOES (EXECUTIVE \nBOARD), and ORAZIO PETITO, \n \nDefendants. \n \nJeremy A. Hellman, an attorney duly admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New \nYork, hereby certifies pursuant to 22 NYCRR \u00a7202.8-b, that Microsoft Word was used in preparing \nthe instant document, and according to the Microsoft Word wordcount feature, the foregoing \ndocument contains 1,131 words, and therefore complies with the applicable word limit. \nPursuant to 22 NYCRR \u00a7 130-1.1, the undersigned certifies that, upon information and \nbelief and reasonable inquiry, the contentions contained in this document are not frivolous.  \n \nI affirm this 5th day of November, 2026, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of \nNew York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I \nunderstand that this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law. \n \nDated: November 5, 2026 \n \n \nNew York, NY \n \n \n \n \n \n \nRHEINGOLD GIUFFRA RUFFO PLOTKIN & HELLMAN LLP \n \n \n \n \n \nAttorneys for Plaintiff \n \n \n \n \n \n     \n \n \n \n \n \nBy: \nJeremy A. Hellman, Esq. \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 09:37 AM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 99\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n4 of 5\n\n--- Page 5 ---\n551 Fifth Avenue, 29th Floor \n \n \n \n \n \nNew York, NY 10176 \n \n \n \n \n \nTel: (212) 684-1880 \n \n \n \n \n \nFax: (212) 689-8156 \n \n \n \n \n \njhellman@rheingoldlaw.com \n \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 09:37 AM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 99\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n5 of 5","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/747/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/747"}