New York City Fraternity Sexual Assault & Hazing: Your Legal Rights After the NYU Zeta Beta Tau Suspension
If you are reading this page at 2 a.m., you may be one of the women whose story appeared on that Instagram account — the one called “The ZBT Files” that posted over 90 pieces of evidence and drew more than 10,000 followers before the university said a word. You may be the former fraternity member who tried to do the right thing, who walked into NYU’s Office of Student Conduct with screenshots and firsthand accounts, and was told to “disengage.” You may be a parent who sent your child to NYU in Greenwich Village trusting that the university supervised the organizations it recognized on its campus. Whatever brought you here, three things need to be said before anything else.
What happened to you was not your fault. Attending a fraternity party, having a drink, being in a social environment — none of those things caused what was done to you. The people who did it caused it. The institution that knew and looked away allowed it.
NYU’s failure to act when it was reported was a breach of its legal duty — not a reflection of your credibility. When a university receives a formal complaint of sexual assault and tells the complainant to “disengage” rather than investigating, that is not neutrality. Under federal law, that is deliberate indifference.
You have legal rights that exist independently of whatever the university’s internal conduct process decides to do. The civil justice system does not wait for NYU to finish its investigation. Your right to hold the people and institutions accountable operates on its own track, with its own deadlines, and its own evidence — and that evidence is disappearing right now.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle fraternity hazing and sexual assault cases. Our managing partner, Ralph Manginello, has 27+ years of trial experience and is currently lead counsel in an active $10 million hazing lawsuit against a university fraternity. We know how institutions protect their reputations, and we know how to break through that wall. This page is legal information, not legal advice. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. But the rights below are real, the deadlines are real, and the evidence is vanishing while you read.
What Happened at NYU: The Zeta Beta Tau Suspension
NYU’s chapter of Zeta Beta Tau — the fraternity’s oldest active chapter, established in 1903 as a Jewish fraternity — was suspended on an interim basis after an Instagram account called “The ZBT Files” began posting photographs, videos, screenshots of group chats, and firsthand testimonies depicting sexual assault, hazing, and antisemitism by chapter members. The account has shared over 90 pieces of evidence and drawn more than 10,700 followers.
A university spokesperson confirmed that administrators are investigating the chapter “for allegations of serious violations” of student conduct and non-discrimination policies. The chapter was ordered to “cease and desist all operations and activities until the conclusion of their conduct proceedings.”
The evidence that surfaced includes:
Sexual assault allegations. At least four anonymous women provided detailed testimonies that ZBT members sexually assaulted them or their friends at fraternity parties. One student described a member reaching up her friend’s skirt and attempting to digitally penetrate her; after she resisted, the chapter kicked her out of the party for “ruining the vibe.” A screenshot of a ZBT members’ group chat showed members discussing intent to “fingerblast a freshman” again before another party.
Hazing rituals. Photographs depicted ZBT members lying face-down on the floor with their hands behind their backs — described as the chapter’s “most recurring ritual.” Members allegedly taped bottles of alcohol to one member’s hands, forcing him to drink it all before unbinding them. A lactose-intolerant student was allegedly instructed to drink a gallon of milk.
Antisemitism. A presentation for a club meeting included slides stating that Jewish people “worked hard like whites” and “commit genocide (sometimes).” Another slide depicted Ku Klux Klan robes and a Confederate battle flag — inside a fraternity founded as a Jewish organization.
The report NYU ignored. A former ZBT member and recent NYU alum — who requested anonymity due to fear of retaliation — reported the chapter to the Office of Student Conduct after the group chat screenshot surfaced. When the office did not act, the former member began posting evidence to the anonymous Instagram account. According to the former member, NYU’s response was to tell the complainant to “disengage from the situation” and that “if we don’t like the environment in the fraternity, we should just go away.”
That response — telling a person who reported a group chat plotting sexual assault to simply walk away — is the centerpiece of the legal case against the university.
“They know the fact that NYU will do everything to protect its own reputation, which includes protecting them, so they abuse it to do all the things that they do.” — former ZBT member, as reported in public coverage of the suspension
The former member’s words describe an institutional dynamic that the law has a name for: deliberate indifference. And deliberate indifference, under federal civil rights law, is something a jury can hold a university accountable for.
Can You Sue NYU After a Fraternity Sexual Assault?
Yes — and the path does not depend on the university’s conduct process reaching any particular conclusion. Your right to sue exists independently of whatever NYU’s internal disciplinary proceedings decide.
There are two main legal roads. The first runs through Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination — including sexual harassment and sexual assault — at any educational institution receiving federal funding. NYU receives substantial federal funding and is bound by Title IX. The U.S. Supreme Court has established that a university can be held liable for damages under Title IX when it acts with “deliberate indifference” to known harassment — meaning the university had actual notice of the harassment and its response was clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.
The second road runs through New York state tort law — negligent supervision, premises liability, and the statutory duty New York imposes on colleges to prohibit hazing. These are separate claims with their own elements, their own deadlines, and their own evidence requirements. A complete case often pleads both: the federal civil rights claim against the university for deliberate indifference, and the state tort claims against the fraternity, its national organization, and the individual perpetrators.
The critical fact for your case is this: NYU had actual notice. A formal complaint was made to the Office of Student Conduct. The university’s response was to tell the complainant to “disengage.” Under the deliberate indifference standard, a jury can find that this response was clearly unreasonable — and that the university’s inaction allowed the harm to continue.
Title IX: When a University Turns Away
Title IX is more than a sports-equity rule. It is a federal civil rights statute that covers sexual assault on campus, and it creates a private right of action against universities that knowingly fail to respond.
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” — 20 U.S.C. § 1681
The Supreme Court established the deliberate indifference standard for institutional liability under Title IX. To hold NYU accountable under this standard, a plaintiff must show: (1) the university had actual notice of the sexual harassment or assault, (2) the harassment was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively barred the victim’s access to educational opportunities, and (3) the university’s response was deliberately indifferent — meaning it was clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.
In this case, the actual notice element is the strongest fact in the entire case file. A former fraternity member walked into the Office of Student Conduct with screenshots of a group chat in which members discussed an intent to commit sexual assault. The university’s response, as reported, was to tell the complainant to “disengage” and to leave the fraternity if they did not like the environment. That is not an investigation. That is not a response. That is a university choosing its reputation over the safety of the people on its campus.
The deliberate indifference standard does not require the university to have prevented the assault. It requires the university to have responded with something more than telling the complainant to go away. When the response to a report of planned sexual assault is to advise the reporter to walk away from the situation, a jury can find that response was clearly unreasonable — and that the university’s inaction allowed the dangerous environment to continue.
Beyond Title IX, two other federal statutes create regulatory pressure on NYU. The Clery Act requires NYU to report campus crime statistics, including sexual offenses, in an annual security report. And as of 2024, federal law requires NYU to detail student organizations’ hazing violations in an annual report — a requirement that exists because Congress concluded that universities were hiding the scope of hazing on their campuses. The fact that NYU had already suspended Kappa Sigma for hazing violations and Alpha Kappa Psi the year before means the university was on notice that hazing was a recurring problem in its recognized student organizations.
New York’s Hazing Laws: The Duty That Was Broken
New York does not just rely on federal law to address hazing. New York Education Law requires colleges and universities to adopt and enforce rules prohibiting hazing — creating a statutory duty framework that supports institutional liability when a university fails to enforce those rules.
The hazing rituals documented in the evidence — members lying face-down with hands bound behind their backs, alcohol taped to members’ hands forcing consumption, a lactose-intolerant student ordered to drink a gallon of milk — are not ambiguous social traditions. They are the textbook definition of hazing: conduct that creates a risk of physical harm for the purpose of initiation or affiliation with an organization.
The forced alcohol consumption is the most physically dangerous of the documented rituals. Taping bottles to a person’s hands and requiring them to drink everything before being unbound removes the person’s ability to stop drinking — the body’s natural defense against alcohol poisoning. A person whose hands are bound cannot put the bottle down, cannot pace themselves, cannot stop when they feel sick. This is a practice that can kill. The forced milk consumption by a person known to be lactose intolerant is a deliberate exposure to a known health hazard — not a prank but a conscious decision to cause physical distress.
New York also criminalizes hazing through its penal law. The existence of both criminal penalties and civil liability means a hazing victim can pursue a civil case regardless of whether any criminal charges are filed. The civil case is its own fight, with its own burden of proof, its own evidence, and its own path to accountability.
Who Can Be Held Responsible: The Full Defendant Map
A fraternity sexual assault and hazing case is not one defendant. It is a stack of entities and individuals, each with a different role and a different exposure. Naming only the obvious one — the individual perpetrator — leaves money and accountability on the table.
NYU (New York University). As a private university receiving substantial federal funding, NYU is subject to Title IX enforcement and the deliberate indifference standard. The university had actual notice of sexual assault and hazing allegations through the complaint to its Office of Student Conduct. Its alleged response — telling the complainant to “disengage” — is the foundation of a Title IX deliberate indifference claim. NYU also owed a duty of reasonable supervision over recognized student organizations, and potentially faces premises liability for university-controlled or affiliated spaces where assaults and hazing occurred. Because NYU is a private university, claims against it do not require a notice-of-claim filing — unlike claims against public entities under New York’s tort claims framework.
Zeta Beta Tau National Organization. The national fraternity chartered the NYU chapter — its oldest active chapter — and owed a duty to supervise and oversee chapter conduct. The national organization’s failure to implement adequate oversight, monitoring, and disciplinary mechanisms for its flagship chapter is the foundation of a negligent supervision claim. The national organization also faces potential vicarious liability for chapter members’ conduct during fraternity-sanctioned events. The context here matters: in 2018, Cornell University’s ZBT chapter was put on probation after a “pig roast” competition in which members challenged each other to have sex with the most women. The national organization investigated and concluded administrators lacked evidence — after which Cornell administrators admitted to misconstruing findings. That incident put the national organization on notice that its chapters had a culture problem with the treatment of women. The NYU chapter’s conduct, years later, suggests that notice was not acted on.
ZBT NYU Chapter (as an entity). The chapter itself faces direct liability for hazing rituals and sexual assaults occurring at chapter events. The organizational culture that fostered and tolerated misconduct — documented in group chats, presentations, and recurring rituals — is evidence of an entity that had become a vehicle for harm. The chapter’s failure to implement safety measures at fraternity parties, its retaliatory expulsion of victims for “ruining the vibe,” and its maintenance of hazing practices as “the most recurring ritual” are all direct evidence of organizational culpability.
Individual fraternity member perpetrators. These are the individuals who committed the assaults — to be identified through discovery. They face direct tort liability for battery, sexual battery, assault, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The group chat evidence showing intent — discussing plans to “fingerblast a freshman” — establishes both the intentional nature and the premeditation of the assaults. This is not a case of miscommunication or ambiguity. The words in the group chat are admissions of intent before the fact.
Fraternity chapter officers and event organizers. The members who organized the parties where assaults occurred, who controlled entry and alcohol service, who knew of prior misconduct and failed to prevent recurrence — these individuals face claims for negligent organization and supervision of events, failure to implement security measures, and potential civil conspiracy in maintaining the hazing culture.
The sexual assault premises liability cases we handle follow the same structural logic: the entity that controlled the space, the entity that organized the event, and the individual who committed the harm are each separate defendants with separate duties. A fraternity party is no different from a hotel or a nightclub in this respect — the entity that creates the environment owes a duty to the people it invited in.
The Injuries: What Sexual Assault and Hazing Do to a Person
The injuries in these cases are not always visible on an X-ray. They are no less real, no less diagnosable, and no less compensable.
Sexual assault trauma. Post-traumatic stress disorder is not a mood or a label — it is a formal medical diagnosis with eight separate diagnostic criteria under the DSM-5, and a survivor has to meet every one of them: the traumatic event itself, the intrusive nightmares and flashbacks, the avoidance of reminders, the negative changes in mood and cognition, the alterations in arousal and reactivity, symptoms lasting more than a month, and functional impairment. The DSM-5 expressly recognizes a “delayed expression” specifier — full criteria can first appear six months or more after the event. Delayed disclosure is the norm for sexual assault, not the exception.
In the largest epidemiological study of its kind, rape was found to carry the highest conditional probability of producing PTSD of any traumatic event measured — more likely to cause lasting psychological injury than combat, than a car wreck, than a natural disaster. Federal public-health researchers estimate the lifetime economic cost of a single rape at more than $122,000 per survivor — and that figure, in 2014 dollars, only counts medical care, lost productivity, and criminal-justice costs. It does not begin to measure the nightmares, the relationships that strain, the front door a survivor can no longer walk through alone.
One of the cruelest myths about sexual assault is that a “real” victim fights back. The science says the opposite: most survivors freeze. It is an automatic survival reflex — the body’s brakes slam on, the muscles lock, the voice will not come. In a clinical study of 298 rape survivors assessed at a Stockholm emergency clinic, 70% reported at least significant tonic immobility — involuntary paralysis — during the assault, and 48% reported extreme tonic immobility. The ones who froze were not consenting. They were the ones the trauma hit hardest — they go on to suffer PTSD at nearly three times the rate of those who did not experience this involuntary paralysis. If you did not fight back, that is not evidence that the assault was not real. It is evidence that your body did what bodies do under extreme threat.
Hazing injuries. The documented hazing rituals carry their own physical and psychological harm. Forced alcohol consumption with hands bound creates a direct risk of alcohol poisoning — the body’s gag reflex and voluntary control over intake are the primary defenses against lethal blood-alcohol levels, and binding a person’s hands removes both. A lactose-intolerant person forced to drink a gallon of milk faces severe gastrointestinal distress, dehydration, and potential allergic reaction. The physical restraint of lying face-down with hands behind the back creates a risk of positional asphyxia — the same mechanism that kills people in restraint holds. The psychological harm of hazing — humiliation, loss of autonomy, coerced submission to degrading rituals — is itself a recognized source of trauma that can produce PTSD, depression, and anxiety independent of the sexual assault.
The retaliation injury. Being expelled from a party for “ruining the vibe” after resisting an assault is not just a social slight — it is retaliation that compounds the trauma. The message it sends — that the social cost of resisting assault is exclusion, that the group values the perpetrator’s comfort over the victim’s safety — is a recognized aggravator of emotional distress. In a damages case, this retaliation supports elevated emotional distress awards because it demonstrates the organization’s conscious disregard for the victim’s humanity.
Evidence Is Disappearing Right Now
This is the most time-sensitive section on this page. The evidence that proves your case is perishable — and some of it is already gone.
The Instagram account “The ZBT Files” (90+ posts). This is the primary documentary evidence — photographs, group chat screenshots, firsthand testimonies, and the foundation for both notice and pattern-of-conduct evidence. The account could be deleted by its creator, reported for removal by the fraternity, or subject to platform takedown at any time. It must be formally archived with screenshots and metadata captured immediately. This is not something to do later. It is something to do today.
ZBT member group chat records. The group chat screenshots showing members discussing intent to “fingerblast a freshman” are admissible as party admissions — statements made by the perpetrators themselves. But group chats can be deleted, platforms can be switched, and devices can be factory-reset. Immediate preservation letters to the fraternity and individual members are essential to freeze this evidence before it disappears.
NYU Office of Student Conduct complaint records and correspondence. These records establish actual notice to NYU, the university’s response, and the timeline of institutional deliberate indifference. This is the single most important document for the Title IX claim. Institutional records retention policies may permit destruction, and a litigation hold letter to NYU must be issued immediately to prevent spoliation — the legal term for the destruction of evidence after a duty to preserve has been triggered.
Witness statements. The former ZBT member who reported to Student Conduct and was told to “disengage” is the linchpin witness for the deliberate indifference claim. That person must be located, interviewed, and their account documented while memory is fresh and before social pressure or fear of retaliation makes them unavailable. The anonymous women who posted testimonies, the students who attended the parties, the members who participated in or witnessed the hazing — each is a witness whose account degrades with time.
Fraternity event records, party logs, and guest lists. These establish who was present at events where assaults occurred, demonstrate organizational sponsorship of the events, and identify individual perpetrators and witnesses. Fraternity records may be discarded during suspension proceedings — the chapter has been ordered to cease operations, and records often “disappear” during such transitions.
Security camera footage. If assaults or hazing occurred in or near university buildings, fraternity houses, or venues with surveillance systems, the footage may depict the conditions, the victim’s entry and exit, and the perpetrators. Surveillance footage is typically overwritten on 7-to-30-day cycles. Every day that passes without a preservation demand is a day closer to that footage being gone forever.
Individual fraternity members’ social media accounts and cell phone records. These may contain additional evidence of misconduct, communications about assaults, and post-incident statements. Content can be deleted at any time. Preservation letters and subsequent subpoenas for cell phone records are required.
ZBT national organization oversight records. Chapter inspection reports, prior complaints, and oversight correspondence establish whether the national organization had notice of the chapter’s culture of misconduct. The national headquarters may “clean house” during a suspension — making preservation letters to the national organization urgent.
The preservation letter is the single most important first step. It is a formal written demand that puts every potential defendant on notice that evidence must be preserved. Once that letter is received, any subsequent destruction of evidence — deleted group chats, overwritten video, “lost” conduct files — becomes spoliation, which can trigger adverse-inference instructions (the jury may assume the destroyed evidence was as bad as the plaintiff says), sanctions, and in some circumstances a separate claim for the destruction itself.
What the Defense Will Try — and How We Answer
The institutional defendants and their insurers have a playbook. Here are the plays you should expect, and the answer to each one.
Play 1: “The victim assumed the risk by attending a fraternity party.”
This is the oldest defense trope in campus sexual assault cases. The argument is that by choosing to attend a party where alcohol was served, the victim voluntarily assumed the risk of what happened. The answer: New York follows a pure comparative negligence standard, but in sexual assault cases, comparative fault is rarely applicable and defense attempts to invoke it face significant legal and public-policy barriers. Attending a party is not consent to be assaulted. Drinking alcohol is not consent to be touched without permission. The law does not treat social attendance as a waiver of bodily autonomy.
Play 2: “The university didn’t know — we can’t be responsible for what students do to each other.”
This is the university’s primary shield. The answer in this case is devastating: NYU did know. A formal complaint was made to the Office of Student Conduct. The university’s own spokesperson confirmed the investigation. The former member who reported the chapter has stated publicly that the office told them to “disengage.” Actual notice is the threshold for Title IX deliberate indifference — and that threshold was met the moment the complaint was filed.
Play 3: “The fraternity is just a student organization — the national organization isn’t responsible for what a local chapter does.”
This is the shell game. The national organization chartered the chapter, licensed its name, collected dues, and set its standards. The 2018 Cornell “pig roast” incident put the national on notice that its chapters had a culture problem with the treatment of women. The national organization’s failure to implement adequate oversight after that incident is the foundation of a negligent supervision claim. A charter is not a one-way street — the national organization gets the benefit of the brand, and it carries the duty to supervise what that brand does on the ground.
Play 4: The quick settlement with a release.
An insurance adjuster or university representative may contact a victim early — before the full scope of the harm is known, before a psychological evaluation is complete, before all the evidence is preserved — and offer a payment in exchange for a signed release. The release, once signed, extinguishes the right to sue. The answer: never sign anything from the other side before you have spoken to a lawyer who represents you, not them. The first offer is designed to close the case at the lowest possible cost, not to compensate the victim fairly.
Play 5: “You should just go through the university’s process.”
This is not a defense — it is a deflection. The university’s conduct process is an internal administrative proceeding. It cannot award damages. It cannot compel the fraternity to pay for your treatment. It cannot hold the national organization accountable. It cannot compensate you for lost educational opportunities or the years of therapy ahead. Your civil rights exist on a separate track, with a separate timeline, and a separate purpose. You can participate in the university process and pursue a civil case at the same time — they are not mutually exclusive.
What a Case Like This Is Worth in New York
New York has no statutory cap on non-economic or punitive damages in personal injury cases. This is one of the strongest features of New York law for plaintiffs — there is no artificial ceiling on what a jury can award for pain and suffering, emotional distress, or punishment.
The damages in a case like this fall into three categories:
Economic damages are the costs you can put on an invoice: medical and psychological treatment — therapy, psychiatric care, medication, potential hospitalization for alcohol-related hazing injuries — and lost educational opportunity costs, including potential withdrawal or transfer from NYU. If a survivor left school because of the assault, the tuition, the lost semester, the delayed graduation, and the impact on earning trajectory are all compensable.
Non-economic damages are the human losses no receipt can measure: pain and suffering, emotional distress, PTSD, anxiety, depression, loss of enjoyment of life, and the psychological impact of retaliation — being expelled from a party for resisting assault compounds the trauma in a way the law recognizes as a separate aggravator. The nightmares, the flashbacks, the streets a survivor now avoids, the relationships that strained under the weight of what happened — these are real losses with real value.
Punitive damages are designed to punish and deter. They are strongly supported in this case by the egregious nature of the conduct: the group chat evidence demonstrating premeditated intent to commit sexual assault, NYU’s alleged deliberate indifference after receiving actual notice, the pattern of recurring hazing rituals indicating an organizational culture that tolerated and fostered abuse, and the retaliation against victims who resisted. New York’s uncapped punitive damages regime means a jury’s condemnation is not limited by a statutory formula.
Based on the severity of the psychological injury, the documented deliberate indifference by NYU, the premeditation evidence in the group chats, and the multiplicity of victims, per-victim recovery in cases like this ranges from approximately $500,000 to $5,000,000 or more. Aggregate exposure across all institutional defendants and multiple plaintiffs could reach eight figures — particularly given NYU’s substantial financial resources, the documented prior notice to the Office of Student Conduct, and the potential for punitive damages under New York’s uncapped regime. The national ZBT organization adds additional collectible depth.
These ranges are honest estimates based on the factors that drive case value in New York — they are not predictions or guarantees. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The actual value of any individual case depends on the severity of the harm, the strength of the evidence, the identity and resources of the defendants, and the judgment of the jury that hears it.
The First 72 Hours: What to Do Now
1. Get medical and psychological care. If you have not already, see a doctor and a mental-health professional. This is not just about your health — though that comes first. It is about building the medical record that documents the harm. The closer to the event, the more powerful the documentation. A therapy intake note from the week of the assault pre-dates any “litigation motive” accusation. A SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) forensic exam, if applicable, creates evidence within hours. Do not wait to see if you feel better before seeking care.
2. Do not sign anything from the university, the fraternity, or any insurance company. If someone hands you a release, a settlement offer, or asks you to sign a statement, do not sign it. Do not give a recorded statement to anyone. The university’s conduct process may ask you to participate — you can, but you do not have to sign away any rights to do so.
3. Preserve everything you have. Screenshots of the Instagram account. Text messages. Photos from the party. The clothes you wore. Any physical evidence. Save it all, back it up, and do not delete anything — even things that feel embarrassing or irrelevant. The group chat screenshots, the party invitations, the messages from that night — every piece is evidence.
4. Document your memory. Write down everything you remember about what happened, in as much detail as you can, as soon as you can. Memory degrades. A written account created within days of the event is more reliable and more powerful than one reconstructed months later. Include dates, times, locations, names (if you know them), and descriptions of the people involved.
5. Call a lawyer. This is the step that starts the clock working for you instead of against you. The day you call is the day the preservation letter goes out — the letter that freezes the Instagram account content, the group chats, the Student Conduct records, the surveillance footage, and the fraternity’s internal documents before they can be legally destroyed. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free. And the call is the first step in taking back control.
How We Build the Proof
Here is how a case like this is actually built — from the first call through the demand.
Week one: preservation. The preservation letter goes out to NYU, to the ZBT chapter, to the ZBT national organization, and to identified individual members. The letter names every category of evidence — the Instagram account content, the group chat records, the Student Conduct complaint file, the party logs and guest lists, the surveillance footage, the social media accounts, the national organization’s oversight records. Once the letter is received, any destruction of that evidence becomes spoliation, with consequences the jury can hear about.
Weeks two through eight: evidence collection. The Instagram account content is formally archived with metadata. Witness statements are taken from the former member who reported to Student Conduct, from the anonymous women who posted testimonies, and from anyone else who attended the parties or witnessed the hazing. Medical and psychological treatment records are compiled with the client’s authorization. The Student Conduct complaint file is demanded from NYU.
Months two through six: discovery. If a lawsuit is filed, discovery begins. Depositions of fraternity members under oath. Depositions of university administrators about what they knew and what they did. Production of the fraternity’s internal communications, the national organization’s oversight records, the university’s Title IX investigation file. The group chat evidence — the words the members used to plan the assault — becomes an exhibit.
The expert phase. A Title IX compliance expert opines on NYU’s breach of the standard of care. A campus sexual assault expert addresses the university’s duty to investigate. A forensic psychologist assesses the victim’s trauma and the causal link between the assault and the psychological injury. A hazing expert contextualizes the documented rituals within the recognized pattern of fraternity hazing.
The demand. Once the evidence is assembled and the harm is documented, the demand is built from all of it — the medical records, the expert reports, the economic loss projections, and the non-economic harm that no spreadsheet can price. The number at the end is not invented. It is built from the proof.
This is not a fast process. But the first step — the preservation letter — is fast. It goes out the day you call.
Who We Are
Ralph P. Manginello is our managing partner. He has been licensed to practice law for 27+ years, admitted in November 1998 (Texas Bar #24007597), and is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He was admitted to the New York bar in 2014. Ralph is lead counsel in an active $10 million hazing lawsuit against a university fraternity — the Bermudez v. Pi Kappa Phi / University of Houston case filed in Harris County in November 2025. He is a member of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association and the Houston Bar Association. Before he was a lawyer, Ralph was a journalist — he knows how to find the story the institution does not want told, and he knows how to tell it to a jury. You can read more about Ralph here.
Lupe Peña is our associate attorney. He is a former insurance-defense attorney — he spent years inside a national defense firm, in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims from people exactly like the readers of this page. He knows how the other side values a claim, how they set reserves in the first 48 hours, how they pick IME doctors, and how they engineer recorded statements. Now he uses that knowledge for injured clients. Lupe is fluent in Spanish and conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter.
We take New York cases, working with local counsel where required. We do not claim an office in New York. We do not need one — the law that governs your rights is federal and state law, and the evidence that proves your case is in New York. We go where the fight is.
Our fee is contingency — 33.33% before trial, 40% if the case goes to trial. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free. Our staff is live, 24 hours a day, seven days a week — not an answering service. Hablamos Español.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue NYU for failing to act after I reported sexual assault by a fraternity member?
Yes. Under Title IX, a university that receives federal funding can be held liable for damages when it acts with “deliberate indifference” to known sexual harassment or assault — meaning it had actual notice and its response was clearly unreasonable. If NYU’s Office of Student Conduct received a formal complaint and told the complainant to “disengage” rather than investigating, that response can support a deliberate indifference claim. Your right to sue exists independently of the university’s internal conduct process — the civil justice system does not wait for the university to finish its investigation.
How long do I have to file a lawsuit for fraternity sexual assault in New York?
New York’s statute of limitations for general negligence-based personal injury claims is three years under the CPLR. Intentional tort claims — such as assault and battery against an individual perpetrator — carry a shorter limitations period. New York has enacted legislation extending the limitations period for certain sexual offense civil claims in recent years, so the specific deadline depends on the exact nature of the claim and when it accrued. Because different claims have different deadlines — and because evidence disappears on its own timeline — the safest move is to consult a lawyer promptly rather than assume you have time. A consultation is free, and confirming your deadline costs you nothing.
What if I was drinking at the fraternity party — does that hurt my case?
No. Drinking alcohol is not consent to be touched, assaulted, or harassed. New York follows a pure comparative negligence standard, but in sexual assault cases, comparative fault is rarely applicable and defense attempts to invoke it face significant legal and public-policy barriers. The law does not treat social drinking as a waiver of bodily autonomy. A fraternity that serves alcohol at a party it organized and controlled cannot use the fact that a guest was drinking as a defense against an assault committed by its members at that party.
The university told me to “disengage” — is that legal?
It is not illegal for a university administrator to say those words — but it is evidence of deliberate indifference under Title IX. When a university receives a report of sexual assault and responds by telling the complainant to walk away from the situation rather than investigating, that response can be found by a jury to be “clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.” The law does not require a university to prevent every assault. It requires the university to respond to reports with something more than advising the reporter to leave. “Disengage” is not an investigation. It is not a response. It is a university choosing to look the other way.
Can the national fraternity organization be held responsible for what a local chapter does?
Yes — under a negligent supervision theory. The national organization chartered the chapter, licensed its name, collected dues, and set its standards. When a chapter develops a culture of sexual assault and hazing, the national organization’s failure to detect and correct that culture through adequate oversight, monitoring, and disciplinary mechanisms is its own negligence — separate from the acts of individual members. The 2018 Cornell ZBT “pig roast” incident, in which members competed to have sex with the most women, put the national organization on notice that its chapters had a culture problem. The NYU chapter’s conduct, years later, suggests that notice was not acted on.
What evidence is disappearing right now that I need to preserve?
The Instagram account “The ZBT Files” could be deleted at any time — by its creator, by the fraternity, or by the platform. Group chat records can be deleted by individual members. Surveillance footage from party locations is typically overwritten on 7-to-30-day cycles. NYU’s Office of Student Conduct records are subject to institutional retention policies that may permit destruction. The former member who reported to Student Conduct is a witness whose memory and availability degrade with time. The single most important step is a preservation letter — a formal written demand that puts every potential defendant on notice that evidence must be preserved. Once that letter is received, any subsequent destruction of evidence becomes spoliation, with consequences a jury can hear about.
I didn’t fight back during the assault — does that mean it wasn’t really assault?
No. The absence of physical resistance is not consent. In clinical research, 70% of rape survivors experienced at least significant tonic immobility — involuntary paralysis — during the assault. The body’s survival reflex under extreme threat can lock the muscles and silence the voice. This is not a choice; it is a biological response. The ones who froze were not consenting — they were the ones the trauma hit hardest, going on to suffer PTSD at nearly three times the rate of those who did not experience this paralysis. If you did not fight back, that is not evidence that the assault was not real. It is evidence that your body did what bodies do under extreme threat.
What is a fraternity hazing or sexual assault case worth in New York?
New York has no statutory cap on non-economic or punitive damages. Per-victim recovery in cases involving fraternity sexual assault with documented institutional deliberate indifference ranges from approximately $500,000 to $5,000,000 or more, depending on the severity of the psychological injury, whether physical injury from hazing is documented, and the strength of the deliberate indifference claim against the university. Aggregate exposure across all defendants and multiple plaintiffs could reach eight figures. These are honest estimates based on the factors that drive case value — they are not predictions or guarantees. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Do I have to go through the university’s conduct process before I can sue?
No. The university’s conduct process is an internal administrative proceeding. It cannot award damages, compel the fraternity to pay for your treatment, or hold the national organization accountable. Your civil rights exist on a separate track. You can participate in the university process and pursue a civil case at the same time — they are not mutually exclusive. But you do not have to wait for the university to finish its investigation before talking to a lawyer or filing a lawsuit. The evidence is disappearing on its own timeline, and the legal deadlines are running on theirs.
The fraternity has been suspended — isn’t that enough?
No. A suspension is an administrative action. It does not compensate the victims. It does not pay for therapy or medical care. It does not hold the individual perpetrators accountable in a court of law. It does not hold the national organization responsible for its failure to supervise. It does not produce the documentary record that a civil case produces — the depositions, the internal communications, the evidence taken under oath. A suspension is a beginning, not an end. The civil justice system is where accountability lives.
Call Us — Free, Confidential, 24/7
If you or someone you love was sexually assaulted or hazed at an NYU fraternity, the evidence is disappearing and the deadlines are running. The call is free. The consultation is confidential. We do not get paid unless we win your case.
1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911)
Our staff is live, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Not an answering service — real people who can take your call right now and connect you with a lawyer who handles fraternity hazing and sexual assault cases. Contact us here.
Hablamos Español. Lupe Peña conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. But the rights described here are yours, and the first step — the preservation letter that freezes the evidence before it disappears — is the one that starts the day you call.