Skip to content

Incident Tracker / United States (state)

Landberg v City of New York

·Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department·US-STATEPendingprovisional

On 2026-05-20, in Landberg v City of New York, New York's Second Department ordered the filer to show cause why sanctions should not issue for the defective authorities. Counsel filed a brief using unsupported or inaccurate legal authorities. The sanction issue remained pending after the order.

Court
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department
Date
2026-05-20
Who used the AI
Lawyer
AI tool
Not identified in the record
Conduct
Counsel’s submission contained fabricated, erroneous, or unsupported citations identified by the court. The court issued an order to show cause and had not yet resolved sanctions in this document.
Outcome
Pending
Penalty
No monetary penalty recorded
Regulatory outcome
No separate regulatory disposition recorded
Status
Provisional — written by the court-decisions pipeline, awaiting the editor
Last checked
2026-09-07

Primary sources for this incident

Related regulation records for this incident

No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.

Similar incidents on the record

  • Lisandrillo v. Palozzi, No. 4D2026-2262 (Fla. 4th DCA)2026-09-16 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District · PendingIn Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, petitioner's counsel Jaclyn R. Soroka filed an emergency writ petition and related filings the court suspected contained AI-generated components, including convoluted false…
  • Kid International, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida, No. 4D2025-2599 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)2026-10-07 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District · SanctionsIn Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, counsel for Kid International filed an AI-assisted brief citing a hallucinated case seven times and fabricated quotations from real authorities. The court affirmed on the me…
  • Cervantes v. Bianco, No. S295866 (Cal. Sept. 24, 2026)2026-09-24 · Supreme Court of California · Regulatory referralIn California, the state Supreme Court disapproved the improper use of AI tools in the Riverside County sheriff's briefing in a ballot-seizure writ case, after the law firm misquoted Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors…
  • State ex rel. Schnell v. Richardson, No. ED114731 (Mo. Ct. App.)2026-09-08 · Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District · SanctionsIn the Missouri Court of Appeals, relator's counsel Jenna Rohr Conley admitted using generative AI to research a mandamus petition and failing to verify two cases that did not exist. The court denied the writ and impose…

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Landberg v City of New York”, safelegalai.com/tracker/landberg-v-city-of-new-york-2026 (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →