Grymes Development Company v. Fodera
SC New York · Nov 10, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC New York
- Record ID
- grymes-development-company-v-fodera-2025-11-10
- Observed outcome
- Summary judgment motion denied with prejudice; counsel sanctioned $2,000 to the Lawyers Fund for Client Protection; counsel ordered to pay $11,718.50 and $5,275.00 in attorney fees and costs to opposing parties.
- Known monetary consequence
- $18,993
Why this matter warrants attention
The court sanctioned counsel for filing a summary judgment motion containing fabricated case law generated by AI. The court ordered a $2,000 fine to the Lawyers Fund for Client Protection and mandated reimbursement of $16,993.50 in attorney fees and costs to opposing counsel.
The court determined the conduct was frivolous because the motion relied on non-existent case law, which was completely without merit in law and wasted resources. The court noted that a simple search on a legitimate legal research platform would have revealed the citation's inaccuracy. The court considered the attorney's immediate admission and apology as mitigating factors in determining the sanction amount, but emphasized that blind reliance on AI does not exempt attorneys from their professional duties of competence and independent judgment.
This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in SC New York, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction (2,000 USD); Adverse Costs Order.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- $18,993
- Procedural posture
- Following a summary judgment motion containing AI-generated fabricated citations, the court held a hearing on sanctions and issued a written decision denying the motion with prejudice and awarding monetary sanctions and fees.
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
Opinion refers to counsel's reliance on 'artificial intelligence' without naming a specific tool.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Escalate and correct a suspect filing promptly, with a documented response.