Facey v. Fisher, Liane et al.
SC New York · Sep 15, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC New York
- Record ID
- facey-v-fisher-liane-et-al-2025-09-15
- Observed outcome
- Motion to dismiss granted; motion for sanctions granted; counsel ordered to submit an affirmation regarding AI usage and an explanation for false citations; defendants awarded legal fees.
- Known monetary consequence
- $0
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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).
Every AI-assisted cite must be Shepardized against primary sources and disclosed to the court before filing.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Tort
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI applications and/or chatbots
- Known monetary consequence
- $0
- Procedural posture
- Decision and Order on motion to dismiss and 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
The court referenced AI applications and/or chatbots as the source of the hallucinations.
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.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.