{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"ATTORNEY  AFFIRMATION OF  JAMES C. KNOX IN  OPPOSITION TO  PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION  FOR AN  ADJOURNMENT","alternateName":"161704_2026_Jane_Doe_v_Cornell_University_Inc_et_al_AFFIDAVIT_AFFIRMATI_100_1.pdf","caption":"ATTORNEY  AFFIRMATION OF  JAMES C. KNOX IN  OPPOSITION TO  PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION  FOR AN  ADJOURNMENT","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/761/raw","datePublished":"2026-11-06T00:43:48+00:00","description":"ATTORNEY  AFFIRMATION OF  JAMES C. KNOX IN  OPPOSITION TO  PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION  FOR AN  ADJOURNMENT","encodingFormat":"application/pdf","identifier":"761","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/761/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/761/index.md"},"name":"161704_2026_Jane_Doe_v_Cornell_University_Inc_et_al_AFFIDAVIT_AFFIRMATI_100_1","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 \nOPPOSITION TO \nPLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION \nFOR AN \nADJOURNMENT \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 under \npenalty of perjury the following:  \n1. \nI am a member of Hacker Murphy LLP, attorneys for defendant Diego Sarabia \n(hereinafter \u201cdefendant\u201d), and am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this matter. I \nsubmit this affirmation in opposition to plaintiff\u2019s application seeking an adjournment of \ndefendant\u2019s pending motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 99).  \n2. \nDefendant respectfully submits that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause \nfor the substantial adjournment requested.  Plaintiff does not address the obvious prejudice to \ndefendant that would be occasioned by the requested delay. \n3. \nThe pending motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s complaint was timely filed and noticed \nin accordance with the CPLR. \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 07:23 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 100\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n1 of 6\n\n--- Page 2 ---\n2 \n \n4. \nPlaintiff now seeks an extraordinarily lengthy adjournment to respond, but plaintiff \ndoes not contend that counsel is unavailable; that counsel has a conflicting trial schedule; that \ncounsel suffers from any medical, mental, or personal hardship; or that there exists any other \ncircumstance preventing counsel from preparing opposition papers within the ordinary briefing \nschedule. \n5. \nIn short, plaintiff identifies no present inability to timely oppose defendant\u2019s \nmotion.  \n6. \nInstead, plaintiff speculates that other defendants may elect to file motions at some \ndate in the future, and that it would be more convenient for her to respond to all such motions (if \nfiled) simultaneously. \n7. \nPlaintiff elected to commence a multi-defendant action containing numerous causes \nof action and extensive factual allegations.   \n8. \nThe prospect of responding to motion practice from multiple defendants is an \nordinary consequence of such a litigation decision and does not, standing alone, justify delaying \nthe determination of the instant motion which is already properly before the Court.  \n9. \nPlaintiff makes no claim that the hypothetical potential motions from other \ndefendants may include similar issues.  Each defendant\u2019s situation is factually specific and distinct. \nPlaintiff will need to respond to any future motion on its own merits, making it unlikely that an \nadjournment would result in any benefit of convenience.   \n10. \nPlaintiff\u2019s convenience is not the equivalent of necessity; nor is convenience good \ncause for the requested adjournment.   \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 07:23 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 100\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n2 of 6\n\n--- Page 3 ---\n3 \n \n11. \nDefendant respectfully submits that his pending motion should not be delayed \nbased upon hypothetical anticipated motions that have not yet been filed and whose nature remains \nunknown.   \n12. \nPlaintiff\u2019s assertion that defendant\u2019s motion has \u201ccomplex issues of law\u201d which \n\u201cneed to be examined against [the] extensive complaint\u201d is belied by the content of defendant\u2019s \nstraightforward motion.   \n13. \nPlaintiff waited too long to bring her intentional tort claims against defendant, and \nshe relies on an obviously fictional duty to support her negligence claim.  Plaintiff has no other \nclaims against this defendant, and these are not complicated issues.    \n14. \nDefendant\u2019s simple motion addresses those issues and other pleading deficiencies \nplainly evident on the face of the complaint in a very brief memorandum of law.  Plaintiff makes \nno argument that she would have any real difficulty timely responding to defendant\u2019s arguments. \n15. \nWhile defendant\u2019s counsel appreciates requests for reasonable accommodations \nwhen circumstances require them, plaintiff has never given any reason \u2013 not now or in her prior \nrequests to defendant for an adjournment \u2013 evincing any genuine need for an extension, much less \na need for a two-month extension.  \n16. \nDefendant\u2019s refusal to consent does not establish good cause for the requested \nrelief, especially when he would be prejudiced by the requested delay. \n17. \nWhether plaintiff granted extensions of time to other defendants is of no moment \nto defendant, and irrelevant to the issues of good cause and prejudice.  Defendant is an individual \nand should not be collectivized with any other defendant. \n18. \nPlaintiff has asserted serious and salacious allegations against defendant, but most \nof plaintiff\u2019s claims are barred by the statute of limitations. \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 07:23 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 100\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n3 of 6\n\n--- Page 4 ---\n4 \n \n19. \nThe only claim not so barred \u2013 sounding in negligence \u2013 is brought despite the plain \nabsence of any legally cognizable duty.  \n20. \nPlaintiff should have known that her claims against defendant were legally \nuntenable when she brought them. \n21. \nPlaintiff\u2019s request for an adjournment appears to be a thinly-veiled attempt to \nunnecessarily delay an unfavorable decision.  \n22. \nIn the event the Court determines that some additional time is warranted, defendant \nrespectfully requests any adjournment be limited to the minimal period sufficient to permit plaintiff \nto prepare opposition papers to defendant\u2019s motion.  \nWHEREFORE, defendant Diego Sarabia respectfully requests that plaintiff\u2019s application \nfor an adjournment (Dkt. No. 99). be denied or, in the alternative, that any adjournment be limited \nto a very brief period deemed appropriate by the Court, together with such other and further relief \nas the Court deems just and proper. \nI affirm this 5th day of November, 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.  \nDATED: Albany, New York  \n \nNovember 5, 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 \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 07:23 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 100\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n4 of 6\n\n--- Page 5 ---\n5 \n \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 \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 07:23 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 100\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n5 of 6\n\n--- Page 6 ---\n6 \n \nCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 202.8-B \n \n \nI, James C. Knox, hereby certify pursuant to Rule 202.8-b of the Uniform Rules of the \nSupreme Courts, that the length of this Affirmation, exclusive of the signature block and of this \ncertification itself, is 838 words. In making this certification, I have relied on the word count tool \nin the word processing program that I used to compose this document, Microsoft Word. \n \nDated: Albany, New York \n \nNovember 5, 2026 \nRespectfully submitted, \n \nHACKER MURPHY LLP \n \n \n \nBy:_______________________________________  \nJames C. Knox \nAttorneys for Defendant Diego Sarabia \nOffice & P.O. Address \n22 Corporate Woods Boulevard, Suite 404 \nAlbany, NY  12211 \nTelephone:  518-274-5820 \njknox@hackermurphy.com  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 07:23 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 100\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n6 of 6","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 \nOPPOSITION TO \nPLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION \nFOR AN \nADJOURNMENT \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 under \npenalty of perjury the following:  \n1. \nI am a member of Hacker Murphy LLP, attorneys for defendant Diego Sarabia \n(hereinafter \u201cdefendant\u201d), and am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this matter. I \nsubmit this affirmation in opposition to plaintiff\u2019s application seeking an adjournment of \ndefendant\u2019s pending motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 99).  \n2. \nDefendant respectfully submits that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause \nfor the substantial adjournment requested.  Plaintiff does not address the obvious prejudice to \ndefendant that would be occasioned by the requested delay. \n3. \nThe pending motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s complaint was timely filed and noticed \nin accordance with the CPLR. \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 07:23 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 100\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n1 of 6\n\n--- Page 2 ---\n2 \n \n4. \nPlaintiff now seeks an extraordinarily lengthy adjournment to respond, but plaintiff \ndoes not contend that counsel is unavailable; that counsel has a conflicting trial schedule; that \ncounsel suffers from any medical, mental, or personal hardship; or that there exists any other \ncircumstance preventing counsel from preparing opposition papers within the ordinary briefing \nschedule. \n5. \nIn short, plaintiff identifies no present inability to timely oppose defendant\u2019s \nmotion.  \n6. \nInstead, plaintiff speculates that other defendants may elect to file motions at some \ndate in the future, and that it would be more convenient for her to respond to all such motions (if \nfiled) simultaneously. \n7. \nPlaintiff elected to commence a multi-defendant action containing numerous causes \nof action and extensive factual allegations.   \n8. \nThe prospect of responding to motion practice from multiple defendants is an \nordinary consequence of such a litigation decision and does not, standing alone, justify delaying \nthe determination of the instant motion which is already properly before the Court.  \n9. \nPlaintiff makes no claim that the hypothetical potential motions from other \ndefendants may include similar issues.  Each defendant\u2019s situation is factually specific and distinct. \nPlaintiff will need to respond to any future motion on its own merits, making it unlikely that an \nadjournment would result in any benefit of convenience.   \n10. \nPlaintiff\u2019s convenience is not the equivalent of necessity; nor is convenience good \ncause for the requested adjournment.   \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 07:23 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 100\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n2 of 6\n\n--- Page 3 ---\n3 \n \n11. \nDefendant respectfully submits that his pending motion should not be delayed \nbased upon hypothetical anticipated motions that have not yet been filed and whose nature remains \nunknown.   \n12. \nPlaintiff\u2019s assertion that defendant\u2019s motion has \u201ccomplex issues of law\u201d which \n\u201cneed to be examined against [the] extensive complaint\u201d is belied by the content of defendant\u2019s \nstraightforward motion.   \n13. \nPlaintiff waited too long to bring her intentional tort claims against defendant, and \nshe relies on an obviously fictional duty to support her negligence claim.  Plaintiff has no other \nclaims against this defendant, and these are not complicated issues.    \n14. \nDefendant\u2019s simple motion addresses those issues and other pleading deficiencies \nplainly evident on the face of the complaint in a very brief memorandum of law.  Plaintiff makes \nno argument that she would have any real difficulty timely responding to defendant\u2019s arguments. \n15. \nWhile defendant\u2019s counsel appreciates requests for reasonable accommodations \nwhen circumstances require them, plaintiff has never given any reason \u2013 not now or in her prior \nrequests to defendant for an adjournment \u2013 evincing any genuine need for an extension, much less \na need for a two-month extension.  \n16. \nDefendant\u2019s refusal to consent does not establish good cause for the requested \nrelief, especially when he would be prejudiced by the requested delay. \n17. \nWhether plaintiff granted extensions of time to other defendants is of no moment \nto defendant, and irrelevant to the issues of good cause and prejudice.  Defendant is an individual \nand should not be collectivized with any other defendant. \n18. \nPlaintiff has asserted serious and salacious allegations against defendant, but most \nof plaintiff\u2019s claims are barred by the statute of limitations. \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 07:23 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 100\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n3 of 6\n\n--- Page 4 ---\n4 \n \n19. \nThe only claim not so barred \u2013 sounding in negligence \u2013 is brought despite the plain \nabsence of any legally cognizable duty.  \n20. \nPlaintiff should have known that her claims against defendant were legally \nuntenable when she brought them. \n21. \nPlaintiff\u2019s request for an adjournment appears to be a thinly-veiled attempt to \nunnecessarily delay an unfavorable decision.  \n22. \nIn the event the Court determines that some additional time is warranted, defendant \nrespectfully requests any adjournment be limited to the minimal period sufficient to permit plaintiff \nto prepare opposition papers to defendant\u2019s motion.  \nWHEREFORE, defendant Diego Sarabia respectfully requests that plaintiff\u2019s application \nfor an adjournment (Dkt. No. 99). be denied or, in the alternative, that any adjournment be limited \nto a very brief period deemed appropriate by the Court, together with such other and further relief \nas the Court deems just and proper. \nI affirm this 5th day of November, 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.  \nDATED: Albany, New York  \n \nNovember 5, 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 \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 07:23 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 100\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n4 of 6\n\n--- Page 5 ---\n5 \n \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 \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 07:23 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 100\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n5 of 6\n\n--- Page 6 ---\n6 \n \nCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 202.8-B \n \n \nI, James C. Knox, hereby certify pursuant to Rule 202.8-b of the Uniform Rules of the \nSupreme Courts, that the length of this Affirmation, exclusive of the signature block and of this \ncertification itself, is 838 words. In making this certification, I have relied on the word count tool \nin the word processing program that I used to compose this document, Microsoft Word. \n \nDated: Albany, New York \n \nNovember 5, 2026 \nRespectfully submitted, \n \nHACKER MURPHY LLP \n \n \n \nBy:_______________________________________  \nJames C. Knox \nAttorneys for Defendant Diego Sarabia \nOffice & P.O. Address \n22 Corporate Woods Boulevard, Suite 404 \nAlbany, NY  12211 \nTelephone:  518-274-5820 \njknox@hackermurphy.com  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2026 07:23 PM\nINDEX NO. 161704/2026\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 100\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2026\n6 of 6","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/761/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/761"}