Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C.
SC New York · Jan 27, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court imposed a $10,000 monetary sanction and struck the defendant's opposition brief after counsel submitted filings containing fabricated case law and quotations. The court found that counsel failed to verify research obtained from an unvetted brief, violating ethical duties of competence, diligence, and candor.
- Why the court cared
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Becker v Elm Air Conditioning Corp., 143 AD2d 965, 966 (2nd Dep't 1988) for a proposition the case does not support; court found mischaracterization of the holding. || Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Counsel copied large portions of an unrelated brief (For a Financial Asset Securitization 2021, LLC v Teona, 2025 WL 334218) that itself had been criticized for non-existent cases; defendant adopted those unverified authorities without verification. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Harris v Seward Park Housing Corp., 147 AD3d 589 (1st Dep't 2017), which the court found does not exist; citation originated from copied brief and was not verified. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited DiLorenzo v D.C. & D. Transp. Corp., 39 AD2d 950 (2nd Dept, 1972), which the court found does not exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | A quotation attributed to Harris v Seward Park Housing Corp. was included in the opposition but does not appear in any cited case and was found only in the copied brief and defendant's filing. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited New York Univ. v Cont'l Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 323 (1995) for a proposition the case does not support; court found the citation mischaracterized the precedent.
- Why it matters now
- Never adopt authorities from another brief without independent verification — borrowed citations carry borrowed fabrications.
Why this matter is tracked
Counsel for the defendant submitted an opposition brief containing multiple fabricated case citations, non-existent quotations, and misrepresented legal holdings. The court determined that counsel failed to verify the content of a brief found on Westlaw, which itself contained AI-generated hallucinations. The supervising attorney failed to provide adequate oversight, despite the firm having access to AI-enhanced research tools. The court rejected counsel's apologies and request for a 'redo,' finding the conduct frivolous and unethical under New York Rules of Professional Conduct. Consequently, the court struck the offending filing and imposed a monetary sanction of $10,000 against the firm and counsel, emphasizing that the duty of competence and verification remains with the filing attorney regardless of the research methods employed.
Never adopt authorities from another brief without independent verification — borrowed citations carry borrowed fabrications.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Counsel admitted to using Westlaw and the court noted the firm's access to AI-enhanced versions.
Sanctions hearing and decision following a Show Cause Order regarding frivolous conduct in court filings.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Becker v Elm Air Conditioning Corp., 143 AD2d 965, 966 (2nd Dep't 1988) for a proposition the case does not support; court found mischaracterization of the holding.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Counsel copied large portions of an unrelated brief (For a Financial Asset Securitization 2021, LLC v Teona, 2025 WL 334218) that itself had been criticized for non-existent cases; defendant adopted those unverified authorities without verification.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Harris v Seward Park Housing Corp., 147 AD3d 589 (1st Dep't 2017), which the court found does not exist; citation originated from copied brief and was not verified.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited DiLorenzo v D.C. & D. Transp. Corp., 39 AD2d 950 (2nd Dept, 1972), which the court found does not exist.
- False Quotes: Case Law | A quotation attributed to Harris v Seward Park Housing Corp. was included in the opposition but does not appear in any cited case and was found only in the copied brief and defendant's filing.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited New York Univ. v Cont'l Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 323 (1995) for a proposition the case does not support; court found the citation mischaracterized the precedent.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C.?
- The court imposed a $10,000 monetary sanction and struck the defendant's opposition brief after counsel submitted filings containing fabricated case law and quotations. The court found that counsel failed to verify research obtained from an unvetted brief, violating ethical duties of competence, diligence, and candor.
- Why does Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C. matter for legal AI risk?
- Never adopt authorities from another brief without independent verification — borrowed citations carry borrowed fabrications.
- What does the public record establish about Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C.?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C. 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.