Ellen Michaelis v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society
SC New York · Apr 3, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew and motion to vacate a judgment, citing procedural deficiencies. While the court identified that the plaintiff used GenAI to produce fabricated and misrepresented legal citations, it did not impose a specific monetary or professional sanction, instead denying the motions on their merits and procedural grounds.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew failed because she provided no reasonable justification for not presenting the 'newly discovered' evidence on her prior motions. Regarding the GenAI usage, the court noted that the plaintiff failed to comply with Part Rules requiring certification of AI-generated content and observed that the hallucinated citations affected virtually every legal citation in the affirmation.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using GenAI to draft legal submissions without verification. It highlights the court's role in identifying and addressing hallucinated authority even when the underlying motion is denied on other procedural grounds.
Why this matter is tracked
In a pro se quiet title action, the plaintiff submitted an affirmation containing numerous fabricated legal citations and misrepresented case holdings. The court identified that the plaintiff used Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) to generate these citations, which included non-existent cases and false quotes attributed to real cases. The court noted that the plaintiff failed to comply with local rules requiring certification that any GenAI-generated content was reviewed for accuracy. While the court ultimately denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew on procedural grounds—specifically the failure to present newly discovered evidence with reasonable justification—it explicitly addressed the prevalence of hallucinated case law throughout the plaintiff's submission as a significant defect in the filing.
This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using GenAI to draft legal submissions without verification. It highlights the court's role in identifying and addressing hallucinated authority even when the underlying motion is denied on other procedural grounds.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court identified the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) for the creation of legal citations.
The matter came before the court on the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew a prior decision and order, and a motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 5015(a).
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributes the statement "A void decree is open to collateral attack at any time." to Matter of Sakow (97 NY2d 436), but the quoted language does not appear in that case; court identified this as a false quotation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cites "Kruger v. Kruger, 107 AD3d 1285, 1287 [3d Dept. 2013]", a case that does not exist; the reporter citation corresponds to Matter of Blocker v. Fischer, 107 AD3d 1285.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court found that numerous additional citations in Plaintiff's affirmation were fabricated or misrepresented by GenAI, pointing to different cases, irrelevant cases, or no case at all.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Ellen Michaelis v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society?
- The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew and motion to vacate a judgment, citing procedural deficiencies. While the court identified that the plaintiff used GenAI to produce fabricated and misrepresented legal citations, it did not impose a specific monetary or professional sanction, instead denying the motions on their merits and procedural grounds.
- Why does Ellen Michaelis v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using GenAI to draft legal submissions without verification. It highlights the court's role in identifying and addressing hallucinated authority even when the underlying motion is denied on other procedural grounds.
- What does the public record establish about Ellen Michaelis v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society?
- 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 Ellen Michaelis v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society 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.