Facey v. Fisher, Liane et al.
SC New York · Sep 15, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court sanctioned the plaintiff's counsel for submitting motion papers containing fabricated and misrepresented case law. The court ordered the counsel to disclose whether AI was used in the drafting process and to explain the source of the erroneous citations, while also awarding the defendants their legal fees for the motion.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the presence of incorrect and false citations is a known sign of AI hallucination. It determined that the counsel's failure to verify citations and his lack of candor regarding the underlying settlement dispute warranted sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a).
- Why it matters now
- Every AI-assisted cite must be Shepardized against primary sources and disclosed to the court before filing.
Why this matter is tracked
In a legal malpractice action, the Supreme Court of New York granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and for sanctions against the plaintiff's counsel. The court identified multiple fabricated and misrepresented legal citations in the plaintiff's motion papers, noting that such errors are characteristic of AI-generated content. The court ordered the plaintiff's counsel to submit an affirmation within five days disclosing whether AI applications were used to draft the filings and to explain the presence of the non-existent citations. Additionally, the court granted the defendants' motion for legal fees incurred in the motion practice, directing the defendants to submit a fee application for a future money judgment against the plaintiff's counsel.
Every AI-assisted cite must be Shepardized against primary sources and disclosed to the court before filing.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court referenced AI applications and/or chatbots as the source of the hallucinations.
Decision and Order on motion to dismiss and for sanctions.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited 'James v. City of New York, 144 AD3d 604, 605 (1st Dept 2016)'; the court found no case at that citation and the actual James decision (144 A.D.3d 466) does not support counsel's argument.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited 'Johnson v. Stadtlander, 162 A.D.3d 1580 (4th Dept 2018)'; the court found no case with that caption or citation.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'Board of Mgrs. of 28 Cliff St. Condominium v. Maguire, 191 AD3d 553 (1st Dept 2021)'; the court found no such citation and the actual Board of Managers case (191 A.D.3d 25) does not support the argument cited.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited 'Xiong v. Knight, 80 A.D.3d 1055 (3d Dept 2011)'; the court found no such case under that caption/citation (citation appears to correspond to a different caption).
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Facey v. Fisher, Liane et al.?
- The court sanctioned the plaintiff's counsel for submitting motion papers containing fabricated and misrepresented case law. The court ordered the counsel to disclose whether AI was used in the drafting process and to explain the source of the erroneous citations, while also awarding the defendants their legal fees for the motion.
- Why does Facey v. Fisher, Liane et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- Every AI-assisted cite must be Shepardized against primary sources and disclosed to the court before filing.
- What does the public record establish about Facey v. Fisher, Liane et al.?
- 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 Facey v. Fisher, Liane et al. 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.