Basko v. Civic Sherman LLC
SC New York · Sep 18, 2025 · Devin P. Cohen
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC New York
- Record ID
- basko-v-civic-sherman-llc-2025-09-18
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the defendants' motion and ordered a hearing to determine appropriate costs and sanctions for the submission of a fictitious citation.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Tort
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- 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.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court noted the citations were likely generated by AI tools.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Implement mandatory verification of all case citations against official reporters before filing.
- Establish a review protocol for all legal research outputs to ensure citations correspond to actual holdings and page numbers.
- Train legal staff on the risks of using generative AI tools that may produce hallucinated legal authorities.