Incident Tracker / United States (state)
Matter of Samuel, 2024 NY Slip Op 24014, 82 Misc 3d 616 (Sur Ct, Kings County 2024)
·New York Surrogate's Court, Kings County·US-STATEOther
In the Kings County Surrogate's Court, Surrogate Bernard J. Graham found that counsel for objectant Leopold Osborne filed reply papers in which five of six cited cases were erroneous or nonexistent, apparently from generative AI, struck the reply from the record, and ordered counsel to appear on January 30, 2024 on possible 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 sanctions. No monetary penalty.
- Court
- New York Surrogate's Court, Kings County
- Date
- 2024-01-11
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- In a contested probate of the 2014 will of Phylliscita Ismay Samuel, counsel for objectant Leopold Osborne (Lorin O. Lewis of counsel per the appearances) filed a reply affirmation in which five of six cited cases were erroneous or nonexistent, apparently drawn from generative AI. Surrogate Bernard J. Graham found the conduct frivolous under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, struck the reply, and ordered counsel to appear on January 30, 2024 on whether economic sanctions were warranted.
- Outcome
- Other
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-04
What was fabricated or misused
- Five of the six cases cited in the October 11, 2023 reply — either erroneous or nonexistent; the court did not list the citations
What the court said
“Even without definitive proof that AI was used to prepare the reply, or an admission by Osborne's counsel, or in fact any acknowledgment by him of the allegations raised by Samuel's attorney whatsoever, it is evident that five of the six cases cited in his reply are either erroneous or nonexistent.”
“A simple Lexis search of the cases cited, which takes mere seconds, shows that the cases and citations contained within the response are incorrect or fake and nonexistent.”
“The court finds that counsel's conduct was frivolous since his reply asserts material factual statements regarding the case law and court holdings that are false.”
“the attorney affirmation in response to opposition to summary judgment, dated October 11, 2023, is hereby stricken from the record;”
Timeline
- Phylliscita Samuel died.
- The 2014 will instrument was filed with the court.
- Osborne filed the summary-judgment motion seeking denial of probate.
- Court gave Osborne's attorney a final opportunity to file a reply.
- Osborne's attorney filed the reply affirmation containing five bad citations.
- Samuel's attorney raised the concern that the reply contained AI hallucinations.
- Court struck the reply and set a hearing on possible economic sanctions.
Why this case matters
Matter of Samuel is a state probate entry that predates several 2024 sanctions records and shows AI hallucinations reaching estate litigation, not only aviation or employment cases. Unlike Park v Kim, the court did not need an attorney admission before acting; five of six citations were enough to strike the reply and schedule a sanctions appearance. The order also tied the problem to New York's frivolous-conduct rule because false case law and false holdings are material factual statements in a motion record.
Practice note
Counsel should run every cited authority through Lexis, Westlaw or the official New York reporter before filing, then read the holding used in the brief. Reply papers filed after a long-delayed motion deserve the same check as opening papers. If AI or a website provides research, the lawyer should document the verification before certifying the filing.
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
- Ex parte Allen Michael Lee, No. 10-22-00281-CR (Tex. App.—Waco July 19, 2023) (published)2023-07-19 · Texas Court of Appeals, Tenth District (Waco) · OtherIn the Tenth Court of Appeals of Texas, Chief Justice Tom Gray held that appellant Lee's brief cited three published cases that do not exist, noted the Argument section may have been AI-prepared, and overruled the issue…
- Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 24-CV-1099 (D.C. Ct. App.)2026-09-03 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Regulatory referralIn the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Deutsche Bank's appellee brief cited four nonexistent authorities after counsel used Google's generative AI search tool without verification. The court struck the brief, ref…
- Kiser v. DeSimone Auto Group, No. 2428 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct.)2026-08-27 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · WarningIn Pennsylvania, counsel for Paige and Ty Kiser cited a non-existent Superior Court decision, Com. v. Reid, for an appellate issue in a consumer dispute. The Superior Court called the authority counterfeit, suggested ch…
- Benjamin v. State, No. 2189 Sept. Term 2024 (Md. App. Ct.)2026-08-25 · Appellate Court of Maryland · WarningIn Maryland, appellate counsel filed a criminal brief with multiple inaccurate citations. The Appellate Court compared the problem to Mezu, said fake AI-generated cases are improper, accepted counsel's corrective effort…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Matter of Samuel, 2024 NY Slip Op 24014, 82 Misc 3d 616 (Sur Ct, Kings County 2024)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/will-of-samuel (accessed 2026-09-08). Data: CC BY 4.0.