AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesBasko v. Civic Sherman LLC
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Basko v. Civic Sherman LLC

SC New York · Sep 18, 2025 · Devin P. Cohen

NY / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationstorttrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court identified that counsel submitted a fictitious case citation and fabricated parenthetical holding in reply papers. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion and ordered a hearing to determine appropriate costs and sanctions for frivolous conduct.

Why the court cared
The court reasoned that the submission of fake opinions wastes judicial resources, deprives parties of authentic precedent, harms the reputation of the court and parties, and undermines the legal system. Under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the court has discretion to impose financial sanctions for frivolous conduct, which includes the submission of false citations.
Why it matters now
This case illustrates the judicial response to the submission of AI-generated fake citations. It highlights the court's authority to sanction counsel for frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 when authentic legal research is bypassed in favor of fabricated authority.

Why this matter is tracked

In a construction litigation matter, the Supreme Court of New York denied a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment filed by AF Defendants. During the briefing, the court identified that the defendants' reply papers included a fictitious citation and a fabricated parenthetical holding attributed to Torres v. New York City Hous. Auth. The court noted that the cited reporter page actually contained an unrelated family law matter. Finding the submission of fake opinions harmful to the judicial process and potentially frivolous under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the court denied the underlying motion and scheduled a hearing to determine appropriate costs and sanctions against counsel for the frivolous conduct.

Operational lesson

This case illustrates the judicial response to the submission of AI-generated fake citations. It highlights the court's authority to sanction counsel for frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 when authentic legal research is bypassed in favor of fabricated authority.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtSC New York
Recorded decision-makerDevin P. Cohen · Justice
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateSep 18, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court denied the defendants' motion and ordered a hearing to determine appropriate costs and sanctions for the submission of a fictitious citation.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The court noted the citations were likely generated by AI tools.

Procedural posture

The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and for summary judgment (Seq. 004) and scheduled a hearing for October 1, 2025, to address potential sanctions.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Reply papers contained a fictitious/misleading citation and fabricated parenthetical attribution concerning Torres v. New York City Hous. Auth.; court found the reporter pages and holding misstated and not supported by the cited decision.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Basko v. Civic Sherman LLC?
The court identified that counsel submitted a fictitious case citation and fabricated parenthetical holding in reply papers. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion and ordered a hearing to determine appropriate costs and sanctions for frivolous conduct.
Why does Basko v. Civic Sherman LLC matter for legal AI risk?
This case illustrates the judicial response to the submission of AI-generated fake citations. It highlights the court's authority to sanction counsel for frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 when authentic legal research is bypassed in favor of fabricated authority.
What does the public record establish about Basko v. Civic Sherman LLC?
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Basko v. Civic Sherman LLC summary?
The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Keefe v. BMakin Film LtdSC New York · Apr 24, 2026same court · fake citations + tortRodriguez v. Time Warner EntertainmentSC New York · Jul 22, 2026same court · fake citations + tortPolanco v. Brooklyn Rose LLCSC New York · Jun 16, 2026same court · fake citations + tortVargas v. MTA Bus Co.SC New York · Jun 12, 2026same court · fake citations + tortGully v VargheseSC New York · May 12, 2026same court · fake citations + tortEspinoza v. M&R Const. Group Inc.SC New York · Mar 19, 2026same court · fake citations + tort