New York AG Letitia James Takes Over Cornell 7 ‘Gang-Rape’ Investigation After Hochul Removes Local DA

New York Attorney General Letitia James has taken over the criminal investigation into allegations that seven Cornell University fraternity members drugged and gang-raped a student in 2024, after New York Gov. Kathy Hochul removed the local district attorney from the case.

The intervention comes only days after Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten reopened the case, nearly two years after his office declined to bring charges. He had planned to take the evidence before a grand jury.

Hochul signed an executive order on October 1, 2026, appointing James’s office as special prosecutor with authority to investigate the alleged assault and pursue criminal charges if warranted. The order removes Van Houten’s office from prosecuting the case.

“We will review the facts, gather evidence, interview witnesses, and if warranted, pursue prosecutions,” James said Friday, October 2.

Hochul said she intervened after newly released information raised questions about the Cornell University Police Department’s investigation and the district attorney’s decision not to prosecute in 2024.

The governor said Cornell police provided prosecutors with only part of the record and that Van Houten’s office did not interview the woman before declining prosecution. She said those developments undermined her confidence in the district attorney’s handling of the matter.

The case stems from a September 14 lawsuit filed by a former Cornell student identified as Jane Doe, who accuses seven current and former Chi Phi fraternity members of drugging and gang-raping her at the fraternity house on October 19, 2024. She reported the alleged assault to Cornell University Police the following month.

Van Houten initially said the allegations in Doe’s lawsuit differed substantially from the account prosecutors reviewed in 2024. He later acknowledged that his office had not received the complete transcript of Doe’s police interview and had relied on the Cornell police investigation rather than conducting an independent inquiry.

The transcript showed Doe told investigators she was certain she had been raped. Van Houten also said prosecutors had not received a screenshot from the “Chi Phi Actives” Snapchat group that appears in the civil complaint, although Cornell has said investigative material provided to prosecutors included the image.

Van Houten reopened the case earlier this week as his office sought additional records and reassessed the evidence. Hochul’s order now places that work under James’s authority.

James was already examining another part of the controversy. Her office opened a separate review into Cornell’s handling of the allegations before Hochul appointed her office to oversee the criminal case.

Cornell has also agreed to an outside review of its response.

The university conducted a Title IX investigation after Doe reported the alleged assault. Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff has said two accused students were expelled, two were suspended for at least two semesters, one graduated before sanctions could be imposed, and two were found not responsible for sexual misconduct.

Doe’s civil lawsuit against Cornell, the seven men and other defendants remains pending. That case seeks damages and proceeds separately from any potential criminal prosecution.

Attorneys for some of the accused men have disputed the allegations. Lawyers for two have publicly denied that their clients participated in a sexual assault, including one attorney who said his client never touched Doe.

Cornell has said it supports Hochul’s decision to transfer the case to the Attorney General’s Office.

“Every New Yorker deserves to know that when they report a crime, it will be investigated fully and fairly,” James said after her appointment. “The Governor has entrusted my office with this investigation, and we do not take that responsibility lightly.”

No criminal charges have been filed against any of the seven men. James’s office will now determine whether the evidence supports prosecution and whether the case should proceed before a grand jury.