Clean Sweep: New York Court Dismisses Every Claim Against the Sigma Alpha Mu Defendants in Adult Survivors Act Suit

William T. “Toby” Eveland, Manley Burke LPA, teveland@manleyburke.com

Andrew E. Bollinger, Manley Burke LPA, andrew.bollinger@manleyburke.com

 Logan Caudill, Manley Burke LPA,  logan.caudill@manleyburke.com

A complete defense win for fraternal organizations. In Van Hooser v. Fine, et al., the Onondaga County Supreme Court in New York dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety against the Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity defendants — Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity, Inc. (the “National Fraternity”), ETASAM, Inc. (the “House Corporation”), and the Sigma Alpha Mu/Eta Chapter. The plaintiff alleged that a former Syracuse University basketball coach who also served as the Chapter’s advisor (the “Chapter Advisor”) engaged in repeated, nonconsensual sexual conduct with him between 2008 and 2011 at the Chapter Advisor’s campus office and at the off-campus Chapter House where the plaintiff was employed. After the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed an earlier statute-of-limitations dismissal and remanded the case to address alternative grounds, Justice Joseph E. Lamendola granted the Fraternity defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety.

Premises Liability Failed at the Threshold

The court found that a tenant’s liability for a third party’s criminal acts arises only where the conduct was reasonably foreseeable from similar prior crime at or near the location. Critically, none of the Fraternity defendants owned the house, as it belonged to an unrelated entity, and the House Corporation merely leased it. The plaintiff’s theory — that 2002 media reports involving other alleged victims of the Chapter Advisor/Basketball Coach supplied that notice — was held conclusory. The court specifically ruled that the 2008–2011 Eta Chapter members were not yet in college when those reports circulated, so the alleged knowledge could not be attributed to the Fraternity defendants through any claimed agency relationship with them or the Chapter. It was too attenuated.

Vicarious Liability and Ratification Fared No Better

In denying the plaintiff’s claims, the court further held the Chapter Advisor’s alleged abuse fell “well beyond the scope of his agency” because it served no fraternity business and was not otherwise authorized or ratified by the Fraternity defendants. In fact, it was specifically prohibited.

The result stands in sharp relief against the balance of the decision: the court allowed an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim to proceed against the University and denied the Chapter Advisor’s own motion to dismiss. For the Sigma Alpha Mu defendants, by contrast, all claims against them were dismissed.

Why it Matters

This is a significant win for national organizations, house corporations, and local chapters facing lookback-window claims built on an advisor’s alleged personal misconduct and stale publicity. The decision confirms that ownership and leasehold must be analyzed entity by entity; that decades-old media reports do not automatically become constructive notice to a later undergraduate chapter; and that criminal sexual conduct by an advisor remains outside the scope of agency absent facts showing actual knowledge and participation.

The full order can be found HERE.

The Fraternity defendants are represented by Manley Burke, LPA (lead attorney William T. “Toby” Eveland), whose defense secured the dismissal of every claim.