# A New York court annuls a university's AI-detection finding — and orders the record expunged

> In Matter of Newby v Adelphi University, the New York State Supreme Court annulled an academic-integrity finding built on a Turnitin '100%' AI-detection score, calling it 'without valid basis and devoid of reason' and ordering the record expunged.

- Verification status: verified
- Case type: deployment
- Provider: New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County (Hon. Randy Sue Marber, J.S.C.)
- Client: Matter of Newby v Adelphi University, Higher education / AI-detection accountability (named)
- Sector: education / US / ops
- Verified on: 2026-08-27
- Canonical URL: https://theinternetninja.com/stories/newby-v-adelphi-university-a-new-york-court-annuls-a-university-s-ai-detection-f/
- Source: The Internet Ninja (theinternetninja.com), independent verified-proof platform

## Outcomes

| Metric | Before | After |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Article 78 petition GRANTED; Violation and Denial annulled | Adelphi academic-integrity violation upheld on internal appeal | Finding annulled as 'without valid basis and devoid of reason'; record ordered expunged |
| Court's characterization of the finding: "without valid basis and devoid of reason" |  |  |
| AI-detection score the finding rested on: Turnitin "AI-generated score of 100%" |  |  |

## Verification method

Court-origin: adjudicated public record (2026 NY Slip Op 26021), holding language byte-tied to the NY Official Reports primary and corroborated by two independent secondaries.

## Full case file

## The problem

Orion Newby, a first-year Adelphi University student diagnosed with Level 2 Autism Spectrum Disorder and enrolled in the university's Bridges Program, submitted a "World Civilization" essay for which he had received help from a Bridges Program tutor ([source](https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2026/02/11/adelphi-student-wins-ai-plagiarism-lawsuit/)). His professor ran the essay through Turnitin, an AI-detection service, and — per the professor's Academic Integrity Violation report as quoted in the opinion — concluded that "having employed 'Turnitin', an AI detection service which produced an 'Al-generated score of 100%', the Essay had 'been produced by artificial intelligence'" ([source](https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2026/2026_26021.htm)). Newby denied using AI, and the opinion records that the appeal officer "failed to even consider the Petitioner's evidence in the form of the two AI detections programs, which indicated that the Essay was 'human written'" ([source](https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2026/2026_26021.htm)). Adelphi upheld the violation and denied his appeal ([source](https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/court-rules-that-university-must-expunge-record-for-student-accused-of-ai-violation-due-to-lack-of-fair-process/)).

## What was built

This is an accountability case, not a vendor deployment: the "system" under scrutiny is the AI-detection score itself and the process built around it. The finding rested on the single Turnitin result, which a law-firm analysis of the decision summarized as a report that "indicated a 100% AI-generated score" ([source](https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/court-rules-that-university-must-expunge-record-for-student-accused-of-ai-violation-due-to-lack-of-fair-process/)). Independent higher-education coverage put the same figure in the student's words, reporting that "the tool gave a result of '100% AI-generated'" ([source](https://www.thecollegefix.com/plagiarism-expert-warns-of-ai-false-positives-following-adelphi-university-lawsuit/)). When Newby appealed, the opinion records that "the individual who issued the Determination - Lacombe - was the identical person charged with the responsibility of entertaining the appeal" ([source](https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2026/2026_26021.htm)).

## The outcome

In an Article 78 proceeding (New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 615397/25, reported as 2026 NY Slip Op 26021, Marber, J.), the court "finds said Violation and the Denial directly resulting therefrom to be without valid basis and devoid of reason" ([source](https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2026/2026_26021.htm)). It ordered "that the petition is GRANTED and the Violation and the Denial are annulled" ([source](https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2026/2026_26021.htm)), and further "that Adelphi is directed to expunge the Petitioner's academic record with respect to the Violation and any sanction imposed in connection therewith is rescinded" ([source](https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2026/2026_26021.htm)). An independent decision analysis reported the same result: the court "annulled the academic integrity violation and appeal denial, and ordered Adelphi to expunge O.N." ([source](https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/court-rules-that-university-must-expunge-record-for-student-accused-of-ai-violation-due-to-lack-of-fair-process/)), and a second outlet recorded the holding verbatim as "without valid basis and devoid of reason" ([source](https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2026/02/11/adelphi-student-wins-ai-plagiarism-lawsuit/)).

The court separately held that Adelphi did not follow its own procedures: "the Petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to confer with an advisor of his choice regarding the Violation" ([source](https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2026/2026_26021.htm)), a failure the law-firm analysis restated as a finding that "he had not been given a fair opportunity to be heard or the assistance of an advisor as guaranteed under the University" ([source](https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/court-rules-that-university-must-expunge-record-for-student-accused-of-ai-violation-due-to-lack-of-fair-process/)).

The court did not rule on the general reliability of AI detectors; it held that this finding, resting on this score and reached through this process, could not stand ([source](https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2026/2026_26021.htm)).

## A note on the sources

The load-bearing quotes are anchored to the court's own published opinion (Tier 1, 2026 NY Slip Op 26021), which is the strongest possible source for an adjudicated outcome. Its one limit is archival, not evidentiary: the primary could not be captured to web.archive.org this session because nycourts.gov blocks the Save-Page-Now crawler, so the durable archived anchors for the holding language are the two independent secondary analyses (Tier 2) rather than the court's own server. Several secondary accounts also err — Inside Higher Ed calls this a "federal" ruling (it is a New York State trial-level court) and some conflate Newby with the separate Moira Olmsted false-positive case — so those weaker readings are not relied on here.

## Sources

1. **Tier 1** — New York Official Reports · *Matter of Newby v Adelphi Univ.* (2026 NY Slip Op 26021), Sup Ct, Nassau County, Marber J. · 2026-01-28 · https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2026/2026_26021.htm
2. **Tier 2** — Liebert Cassidy Whitmore · "Court Rules That University Must Expunge Record For Student Accused Of AI Violation Due To Lack Of Fair Process" · 2026-02-26 · https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/court-rules-that-university-must-expunge-record-for-student-accused-of-ai-violation-due-to-lack-of-fair-process/
3. **Tier 2** — Plagiarism Today · "Adelphi Student Wins AI Plagiarism Lawsuit" · 2026-02-11 · https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2026/02/11/adelphi-student-wins-ai-plagiarism-lawsuit/
4. **Tier 2** — The College Fix · "Plagiarism expert warns of AI false positives following Adelphi University lawsuit" · 2025-10-30 · https://www.thecollegefix.com/plagiarism-expert-warns-of-ai-false-positives-following-adelphi-university-lawsuit/

## How this was verified

- **Method:** Court-origin accountability check. The holding language, the Article 78 disposition, and the Turnitin "100%" figure were quoted verbatim from the primary opinion (2026 NY Slip Op 26021) and cross-checked against two independent secondaries (Liebert Cassidy Whitmore; The College Fix relaying Newsday), each byte-tied to an archived Wayback snapshot.
- **Primary:** NY Official Reports opinion, decided January 2026; local copy retained in `sources/` because nycourts.gov blocks the archiver.
- **Independent corroboration:** Liebert Cassidy Whitmore analysis (archived 2026-08-14) and Plagiarism Today decision analysis (archived 2026-08-14) both reproduce "without valid basis and devoid of reason"; The College Fix (archived 2026-08-14) carries the "100% AI-generated" score.
- **Date checked:** 2026-08-14.
- **Not done, and why:** No confirmation was sought from Adelphi or the petitioner — the outcome is a public record, and asking the subject to confirm its own case would be a testimonial, not an audit.

## Related case files

- [FTC v. Workado — an AI content detector advertised at 98% accuracy, measured at 53%](/stories/ftc-workado-ai-content-detector-98pct-claimed-53pct-actual-accuracy-final-order-2025/): the instrument-reliability counterpart to a finding built on a single detector score.
- [FTC v. Evolv — an AI weapons-detection vendor enjoined for overstated accuracy claims](/stories/ftc-evolv-ai-weapons-detection-court-stipulated-injunction-k12-cancel-right-2024/): another public authority holding an AI-detection product to account for the gap between its claims and its results.
- [Prososki v. Regan — Nebraska's Supreme Court strikes a brief built on AI-fabricated citations](/stories/prososki-v-regan-nebraska-supreme-court-lake-ai-fictitious-citations-brief-struck-appeal-dismissed-discipline-referral-2026/): a court refusing to let an uncritically-trusted AI output stand as the basis for a decision.