Deutsche Bank National Bank v. Jean LeTennier
SC New York · Jan 8, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC New York
- Record ID
- deutsche-bank-national-bank-v-jean-letennier-2026-01-08
- Observed outcome
- Orders affirmed; monetary sanctions imposed against counsel ($7,500) and defendant ($2,500).
- Known monetary consequence
- $10,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The court imposed $7,500 in sanctions against defense counsel and $2,500 against the defendant for submitting at least 23 fabricated legal authorities and misrepresenting real case law in five appellate filings. The court determined this conduct was frivolous and violated professional obligations to verify the accuracy of all submissions.
Fabricated: Case Law | Submission of no less than 23 fabricated legal authorities across five filings, identified by plaintiff and confirmed by the court. || Fabricated: Case Law | Example fabricated citation submitted as 'Tishman Realty & Construction Co. v. Regan' with a New York citation that does not correspond to any reported state or federal case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresentation of the holding of a real case—presented as dispositive for defendant when the cited case holds the opposite.
Twenty-three fake cites across five filings equals $10K sanctions — mandate cite-check before every filing, not just the first.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI)
- Known monetary consequence
- $10,000
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from three Supreme Court orders (March 2023, August 2024, and September 2024) in a mortgage foreclosure action; the Appellate Division affirmed the orders and granted the plaintiff's motion for 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
Counsel admitted to using GenAI in the preparation of papers.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Assign a responsible reviewer for AI-assisted research and drafting.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.