Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Drip Capital, Inc. v. SGM Socher Inc.
Supreme Court of the State of New York · State trial courts · NY · · 2026 WL 1279092 · No. 651061/2025. May 1, 2026 · opinion
The New York Supreme Court on 2026-05-01 ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions or corrective action should not issue for the defective authorities in Drip Capital, Inc. v. SGM Socher Inc. Counsel filed an opposition with two fabricated case citations, including Gildea v Sheridan.
- Disposition
- The court ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions or corrective action should not issue for the defective authorities.
- Recorded conduct
- Counsel filed an opposition with two fabricated case citations, including Gildea v Sheridan and Jones Wolf Realty v 2 E. 79th St. Corp. — outcome: pending; actor: lawyer
- Canonical record
- Incident tracker entry — verified outcome, regulator disposition and related rules
What the court wrote
Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.
However, in light of the history of this action and baseless arguments that have been proffered defendants are strongly cautioned that if they fail to comply or engage in further frivolous conduct serious coercive sanctions may be imposed. The court also may reconsider whether a receiver is necessary if it appears that the approach here is akin to what occurred in Herman. Hopefully, that will not be necessary. Finally, as a separate but no less serious matter, defense counsel included what appear to be AI hallucinations in the opposition brief (see Dkt. 74 at 16-17). He cites two cases (“Jones Wolf Realty v 2 E. 79th St. Corp.
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face