Enjuris examines each defendant in Jane Doe’s lawsuit against Cornell University, Chi Phi, Tri Delta and an Ithaca nightclub, and which claims are likely to survive.
The college experience isn’t all ivy-covered buildings, quiet libraries, and intense intellectual discussions late at night. Many college students also do their fair share of partying, drinking, and having social encounters. For most, these become fond memories, but for some, the memories are a nightmare.
A former Cornell University student filed a lawsuit in September 2026 against seventeen defendants, making claims for her alleged rape that took place in 2024. This case has drawn national attention, both online and in the higher education community, because of the university’s handling and perceived light punishments of the alleged rapists. But the alleged rapists are not the only defendants in the civil lawsuit—her claim also includes allegations against the university, the alleged rapists’ fraternity, her own sorority (both local and national affiliations), administrators, former students, and a bar that served her alcohol that evening.
Of note, any facts noted in this article are allegations in a civil complaint. The allegations have not been proven, and the defendants are presumed not liable unless a court or jury finds otherwise.
Here’s a breakdown of why each defendant was named, which New York law applies, and how strong the claim appears.
What is the Cornell University lawsuit about?
On September 14, 2026, a summons and complaint were filed by “Jane Doe” in Supreme Court, New York County. According to the complaint, the plaintiff was 20 years old at the time of the incident, which occurred on October 19, 2024. She was a student at Cornell, and a member of the Tri Delta sorority’s Alpha Beta chapter, and she lived in the on-campus sorority house. On the night in question, she went with the Tri Delta “house mother” to a sorority event at Moonies, a local bar, even though the complaint alleges that the house mother was aware that Plaintiff was intoxicated when she brought her to the bar. A sorority house mother is a live-in adult who’s employed to oversee the daily operations, maintenance, and environment of a sorority house.
When Plaintiff arrived at Moonies shortly after 8:30 p.m., the bouncer marked both of her hands with an “X” to indicate that she was under age 21 (legal drinking age). However, she claims she was still served at least one drink at the bar, though she was under 21 and visibly intoxicated.
Around 11 p.m., Plaintiff left a second bar, Lot 10, and walked alone to the Chi Phi fraternity house to visit Defendant Matthew Ingalls, who was also a Cornell student and a fraternity member. According to the complaint, Plaintiff had consumed about 10 standard drinks in three hours and was visibly intoxicated when she arrived. It alleges that Ingalls gave her a beer and took her upstairs. There, he and Defendant Johnathan Newell, another student and fraternity member, pressured her to use what they said was ketamine, along with marijuana and high-proof liquor. Ketamine is a medical anesthetic, but is used recreationally (illegally) to experience a dissociative or hallucinogenic “high.”
According to the plaintiff’s complaint, she was subjected to a series of sexual assaults over several hours. Around 1:42 a.m., Newell allegedly posted a sexually explicit message about her to the fraternity’s group chat, inviting other fraternity members to take part in the assault. At that time, other members entered the room. The complaint says the last alleged assault was perpetrated by Ingalls and Defendant Winston Lee, also a student and fraternity member, around 5:45 a.m., at which time the plaintiff lost consciousness.
Dram Shop and Social Host Law in New York
New York has two alcohol liability statutes:
The Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101)
This statute makes a business liable for injuries caused by a patron if the business unlawfully sells the person alcohol. An unlawful sale includes selling to a person under age 21, or to a person who is visibly intoxicated, under Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65.
Social host law for minors (GOL §11-100)
This statute extends liability to any person or business that knowingly provides alcohol to a person under 21.
These statutes do not create a claim for a person injured because of their own intoxication, however. They protect people other than the drinker for harm caused by the intoxicated person.
The court relies on Sheehy v. Big Flats Community Day, 73 N.Y.2d 629 (1989). This case involved an underage plaintiff who was served beer at an American Legion beer tent during a community event. She was later hit by a car while crossing a highway. The Court of Appeals held that she was not permitted to sue the Legion. The Penal Law § 260.20(4) criminalizes providing alcohol to minors, but it does not create an implied private right of action for a minor hurt by their own drinking. New York does not recognize a common-law claim against an alcohol provider for a person injured because of their own involuntary intoxication. The Court reasoned that the Legislature had already provided a remedy through the Dram Shop Act, which deliberately excludes the intoxicated person from recovering.
In other words, only people injured by the intoxicated minor’s actions may recover, not the minor herself.
Which of the 17 defendants could be found liable for the plaintiff’s injuries?
The primary involved fraternity members
These individuals (Matthew Ingalls, Johnathan Newell, Winston Lee, Gillio Lopes) have the strongest legal exposure. The complaint accuses these four fraternity members of specific non-consensual sexual acts while the victim was incapacitated. The acts are described as sexual assault, sexual battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Newell is alleged to have sent the group text message and to have supplied the drugs. Under CPLR 1602(11), a defendant who acts knowingly, intentionally, or in concert can be held jointly and severally liable; that means he could owe the full amount of damages.
However, there are a couple of caveats:
- The complaint pleads negligence against each student. A New York court will typically reject a negligence claim built on intentional conduct, so it remains to be seen how this resolves.
- The case will turn on consent, incapacity, and credibility.
The civil standard is lower than a criminal standard. The plaintiff must prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. “Preponderance of the evidence” (sometimes called the “more likely than not” standard) means the burden of proof is satisfied when the plaintiff convinces the judge or jury that there is a greater than 50 percent chance the claim is true.
In this case, these four defendants are likely to be held liable if the plaintiff’s account is deemed credible.
The secondarily involved fraternity members
There are thinner allegations against defendants Diego Sarabia, Scott Norris, and Scott Kretzschmar. Defendant Sarabia is alleged to have grabbed the victim’s face and kissed her without her consent. Defendants Norris and Kretzschmar are alleged to have been among the members who snorted ketamine off her body before they left the room. This could be construed as battery. However, if a jury finds that their conduct did not rise to the level of a listed offense, and that they’re not accessories to one, then the one-year statute of limitations has passed.
New York state law requires that most intentional tort claims, including assault and battery, must be filed within one year of the incident (CPLR § 215[3]).
This lawsuit was permitted to be filed nearly two years after the date of the incident because of another law, CPLR § 213-c, which provides survivors 20 years in which to bring a civil claim for an injury caused by certain listed sex offenses, including first-degree rape. This claim could be brought against any party whose intentional or negligent acts are alleged to have resulted in that conduct. No criminal charge or conviction is required.
This provision allows the negligence claims against the institutions to remain active, and creates a problem for any defendant whose alleged conduct doesn’t rise to a listed offense.
The likelihood of their liability depends on the concert-of-action evidence.
Dram shop claim against Moonies bar
Moonies (named as Zareen Enterprise LLC d/b/a Moonies) faces claims under GOL §§ 11-100 and 11-101, and for negligence, based on allegedly serving alcohol to the plaintiff despite her being marked as underage. If the service happened, it was an unlawful sale. But under Sheehy, the case mentioned above, the intoxicated person may not file a lawsuit against the seller for her own injuries. There is no common-law claim against an alcohol provider in that situation under New York law.
Causation would also be weak against this defendant. The plaintiff allegedly was already intoxicated before she arrived at the bar. She had “at least one” drink at Moonies, but was assaulted hours later at another location. The likelihood of Moonies being found liable in a civil lawsuit is low.
Claims against the sorority
Sorority entities Alpha Beta House Corp. of Delta Delta Delta and Delta Delta Delta Sorority are included for negligence and breach of contract allegations. The complaint alleges the house mother saw the plaintiff was intoxicated but still took her to Moonies; the chapter’s sober monitors and house mother were poorly trained. Tri-Delta National’s Alpha Beta Chapter had designated sober monitors, whose roles were to ensure the safety and well-being of attendees and monitor their fellow sorority sisters for signs of excessive intoxication and/or disruptive behavior.
However, there are a few points that the sorority and related entities will likely challenge in court:
- The Tri-Delta event ended before the plaintiff walked to the Chi Phi house alone.
- The plaintiff was an adult member of a sorority, not a ward.
- There is no social host claim for her own injuries (Sheehy) related to the plaintiff’s being permitted to drink vodka at the house prior to going to the bars.
- Breach of contract claims based on general safety promises are usually dismissed as too vague or duplicating negligence claims.
The likelihood of the sorority entities—either the national corporation or the local chapter—being held liable is low.
Chi Phi Chapter House Association (Xi Chapter)
This entity is a New York not-for-profit organization that is alleged to own and control the house where the alleged incident took place. A landowner has a duty to protect guests from third parties, depending on its ability to control them and its awareness of the need to do so.
Typically, liability for an intoxicated guest’s conduct attaches only if the injury happened on the owner’s property and the owner had the opportunity to supervise.
However, there are significant facts that would support liability for this defendant:
- The alleged assaults happened inside the chapter’s house over the course of several hours.
- The chapter allegedly knew or should have known of a ketamine culture in the house; police allegedly responded to a drug-related incident at the house a week prior to the incident.
- Fraternity members at the door brought the plaintiff in while she was visibly intoxicated.
The defense will argue that notice of drug use is not notice of sexual assault, and that a corporate entity cannot be charged with its members criminal acts. There’s a moderate likelihood that the fraternity house association could be held liable; only time will tell.
Chi Phi Fraternity, Inc. and Chi Phi Educational Trust
These two entities are based in Georgia. They’re alleged to jointly own, manage, and control the local fraternity chapter. New York courts have generally held that national Greek organizations do not have a duty to supervise their members, provided they do not have day-to-day control over the chapter house. The educational trust—typically a charitable arm—is even further removed.
Unless discovery shows real operational control, the likelihood of either of these entities having liability for this incident is low.
Cornell University
Cornell faces claims for negligence, negligent retention and supervision, breach of contract, violation of the NYS Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296), and violation of the Education Law § 6440.
The plaintiff will need to overcome these hurdles:
- New York colleges do not stand in loco parentis (“in the place of a parent”) to adult students.
- Negligent retention generally requires an employment relationship, and students are not Cornell’s employees.
- Education Law § 6440 sets policy requirements for colleges and does not clearly create a private right to sue.
- The Human Rights Law claim likely depends on Cornell’s response after the victim reported the incident, not on causing the assault, itself.
The plaintiff will need to argue that Cornell owns the land where the incident occurred, had prior notice of drug programs at this particular house, and that an appellate court found a duty in a 2023 University of Rochester case, where the school had allegedly received reports of ongoing criminal conduct.
Is Cornell likely to be held liable? The likelihood seems low to moderate.
Orazio Petito, John Does (executive board), John Doe (faculty), and John Doe (alumni)
Orazio Petito was the chapter president at the time of the alleged incident. The executive board, the Cornell-appointed faculty advisor, and the national fraternity’s alumni advisor are each alleged to have been responsible for keeping the house and its members safe. The complaint does not allege that any of them was present, knew what was happening, or had authority to physically control adult members that night. New York generally imposes no duty to control another adult’s conduct without a special relationship.
The advisors’ alleged liability would largely pass through to Cornell and Chi Phi National under respondeat superior (legal doctrine meaning “let the master answer,” which holds an employer legally responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions of an employee). The unnamed John Does would need to be identified and served. It seems unlikely that these defendants will be found liable.
What’s next?
This case will likely narrow as it proceeds. Early motions might dismiss the dram shop, social host, contract and statutory claims, and the negligence claims against the individual students. The crux of this case lies in the intentional tort claims against the students alleged to have committed sexual acts. Among the institutions, the local chapter house corporation, as owner and controller of the premises with alleged prior notice of drug activity, is best positioned to face real liability exposure.
There could be criminal proceedings against the fraternity members; this is different from the civil lawsuit. The county district attorney originally indicated there was not enough evidence to charge the fraternity members with crimes. However, the office announced on September 28, 2026, that it would reopen the investigation because new information has come to light since the original investigation. Any criminal charges would proceed in a different court, with a different judge and jury, and separately from the civil lawsuit.