Ellen Michaelis v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society
SC New York · Apr 3, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC New York
- Record ID
- ellen-michaelis-v-wilmington-savings-fund-society-2026-04-03
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew and motion to vacate in their entirety.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Fabricated_quotes
- Misrepresented_authority
- Failure_to_verify_ai_output
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- 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).
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 identified the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) for the creation of legal citations.
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 protocols for all citations and quotes generated by AI tools.
- Ensure compliance with local court rules regarding the disclosure and certification of AI-assisted drafting.
- Conduct independent research to confirm the existence and accuracy of every case citation before submission.
- Review all AI-generated legal analysis against primary source documents to prevent misrepresentation of holdings.