Brown v. Real Estate Capital of America, LLC

What the court wrote

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

Movants alternatively seek dismissal of plaintiffs' claims and an award of attorney fees, on the additional ground that plaintiffs' opposition assertedly includes a quotation fabricated by artificial intelligence. (NYSCEF No. 30 at 5-6, 9.) Movants do not identify the basis for this court's authority to impose the requested sanction. Movant's request for sanctions is denied. ... Movants have identified a quotation in plaintiffs' opposition papers that does not appear in the case to which the opposition attributes it. But even if this court were to conclude that the challenged quotation is an AI fabrication, rather than the product of ordinary human error, movants' sanctions request is based on a single quotation erroneously attributed to a single case; and the passage of the opposition in which the quotation appears merely provides additional, supplemental support for an argument that rests on properly cited authority. The court is unpersuaded, in these circumstances, that a § 130-1.1 monetary sanction would be warranted.

Authorities cited in the passage: 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 · Matter of Julien v. Arthur, 2026 NY Slip Op 03308 · Tewari v. Tsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1 (1989) · Napoli v. Bern, 171 AD3d 489 (1st Dept 2019)