Espinoza v. M&R Const. Group Inc.
SC New York · Mar 19, 2026 · Devin P. Cohen
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC New York
- Record ID
- espinoza-v-m-r-const-group-inc-2026-03-19
- Observed outcome
- The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and scheduled a sanctions hearing for April 10, 2026.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court identified fabricated case law submitted by the defendants in their summary judgment motion. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and scheduled a sanctions hearing to address the defendants' use of the non-existent authority.
The court noted that the defendants relied on a non-existent case citation that did not correspond to any known legal authority, leading the court to conclude the citation was fabricated.
This case illustrates the judicial response to the submission of fabricated legal citations in motion practice. It highlights the necessity for rigorous verification of all AI-generated or research-assisted legal authorities to avoid sanctions and maintain professional integrity.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Tort
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court issued a decision and order on March 19, 2026, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross-motion, while scheduling a separate sanctions hearing.
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
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.