Landberg v. City of New York

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

In this case, we impose sanctions upon an attorney and a law firm for submitting a brief, prepared with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence (hereinafter GenAI), containing citations to nonexistent cases, fictitious purported Court of Appeals quotations wholly contrary to actual law, and misrepresentations about what certain real cases actually held or decided. As this Court discussed recently in Matter of Julien v Arthur (___ AD3d ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 03308, *1-2), “[c]ourts across the country have recognized the pitfalls posed by the use of GenAI in drafting briefs and other memoranda without verifying the accuracy of the information generated.” “In particular, courts have noted the risk of GenAI hallucinations, which may take the form of citations to nonexistent cases, fabricated quotations from actual cases, or misstatements of law that are not representative of what a case actually decided” (Matter of Julien v Arthur, ___ AD3d at ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 03308, *2 [internal quotation marks omitted]). “The danger posed by GenAI hallucinations lies not merely in their inaccuracy, but also in their tendency to masquerade as a genuine citation or statement of law, resulting in a waste of time and money to the opposing party in exposing the deception and an unnecessary burden on the court's resources” (Matter of Julien v Arthur, ___ AD3d at ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 03308, *2 [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]). Under all of the circumstances presented, including Sanders's lack of candor and submission of a brief with fabricated quotations that significantly misstated the law and with other misstatements that wholly misrepresented what certain real cases actually decided, we deem it appropriate to impose a monetary sanction on Sanders in the sum of $8,000. As for the law firm, we credit Haskel's statements in her affirmation that Sanders's actions were contrary to the law firm's policy, and that the law firm had no reason to believe that Sanders was using GenAI in a manner that exceeded the scope of technology approved for use by the law firm. Nevertheless, as the law firm's name appeared on a brief that contained significant misrepresentations, and in light of the deterrent purpose of sanctions, we deem it appropriate to impose a monetary sanction on the law firm in the sum of $2,500.

Authorities cited in the passage: 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 · Matter of Julien v. Arthur, 2026 NY Slip Op 03308 · Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) · Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. LeTennier, 2026 NY Slip Op 00040 · Grymes Development Co. v. Fodera, 88 Misc. 3d 767 · Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 168 F.4th 231 (5th Cir. 2026)