Moonies claims strict adherence to age verification protocols via hand markings and wristbands, positioning itself as a responsible venue that followed the letter of the law during the Tri Delta event.
The bar is subtly suggesting the plaintiff may have been encouraged to frame her narrative to emphasize prior intoxication, hinting at a coordinated legal strategy rather than simple negligence by the venue.
Lawsuit filed Sept 2026 alleges drugging at Chi Phi house on Oct 19, 2024. Moonies statement confirms 185 guests, 35 underage. Attorney Giuffra admits Moonies was a 'failed guardrail' but not the 'major factor.'
Moonies is playing defense with receipts, but the lawsuit’s focus remains on the alleged assault at Chi Phi, leaving the bar as a contested but secondary defendant in this high-stakes Ithaca scandal.
The legal battle over the alleged Cornell gang rape has taken a sharp turn as Moonies, the Ithaca bar named in the lawsuit, issues a fierce denial regarding its role in the night in question. Following the publication of a lawsuit accusing seven Chi Phi fraternity brothers of drugging and sexually assaulting a female student, Moonies released a statement to TMZ on September 28, 2026, asserting that it never served the plaintiff a single drop of alcohol.
The bar’s defense hinges on strict age verification protocols implemented during a private Tri Delta sorority event held on October 19, 2024, where they claim the plaintiff’s underage status was clearly marked and respected by staff. According to Moonies, the event hosted approximately 185 guests, with 35 identified as being under the legal drinking age of 21. The establishment detailed its security measures, stating that underage attendees had their hands marked with ink, while those 21 and over received wristbands.
Bartenders were explicitly instructed to serve only those wearing the wristbands, creating a visual audit trail for the night’s transactions. The bar labeled the allegation that they served alcohol to the plaintiff despite her marked hands and visible intoxication as "completely inaccurate," shifting the narrative from potential negligence to procedural compliance. The bar’s statement also raises pointed questions about the plaintiff’s movements after leaving Moonies.
The lawsuit alleges that Jane Doe visited another bar before heading to the Chi Phi house, where she claims she was drugged with ketamine and assaulted. Moonies challenges the logic of this timeline, asking how the plaintiff was able to enter a second venue while visibly marked as underage. Furthermore, the bar suggests it is possible that the plaintiff was encouraged to frame her complaint in a way that emphasized her level of intoxication prior to arriving at the fraternity house, though they provided no concrete evidence to support this implication in their initial statement.
Despite Moonies’ aggressive defense, the plaintiff’s attorney, Thomas P. Giuffra, addressed the bar’s role with a measured perspective. Giuffra told TMZ that while Moonies was "just another guardrail that failed that night," he did not view the bar as the "major factor" in the incident.
He acknowledged the failure to prevent service to an underage and intoxicated student but emphasized that these alleged lapses were "dwarfed by the roles of the other parties involved," specifically pointing to the fraternity members and the national organizations named as defendants. The lawsuit continues to target Chi Phi, Tri Delta, and their national bodies, keeping the focus on the alleged assault at the fraternity house rather than the bar’s service practices.
