Hilpert v. 16 Judge SPV LLC
SC New York · Dec 4, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court sanctioned the pro se plaintiff for frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 after he submitted motion papers containing fabricated case law and nonexistent quotations. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, dismissed the plaintiff's claims, and imposed a filing restriction designating the plaintiff as a vexatious litigant.
- Why the court cared
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed seven quotations to cases that do not contain those quotations; the court found these to be fabricated or misattributed quotations relied on in his motion papers. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited “Loeb v Loeb, 84 AD2d 591 (2d Dept 1981)” and attributed a quotation to it; the court found 84 AD2d 591 corresponds to unrelated 3rd Dept decisions (Sanginario; First Depot) and the cited Loeb decision/quotation does not exist as represented. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on a dozen purported authorities that the court and opposing counsel identified as nonexistent case citations listed in defense filings (NYSCEF Doc No. 102).
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in SC New York, with the listed outcome: Costs Order.
Why this matter is tracked
In a contract and tort action, the pro se plaintiff submitted motion papers containing twelve nonexistent case citations and seven fabricated quotations. The court found this conduct to be frivolous under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, noting that the plaintiff failed to provide any explanation for the fictitious authorities beyond a lack of access to commercial legal research platforms. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, designated the plaintiff a vexatious litigant, and ordered the plaintiff to reimburse the defendant for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in responding to the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court further restricted the plaintiff from filing additional motions in the action without prior leave of court.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in SC New York, with the listed outcome: Costs Order.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court noted the plaintiff relied on fabricated authorities and the plaintiff claimed he lacked access to commercial research platforms.
The court issued a Decision and Order on December 4, 2025, granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, awarding costs and fees for frivolous conduct, and imposing filing restrictions on the pro se plaintiff.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed seven quotations to cases that do not contain those quotations; the court found these to be fabricated or misattributed quotations relied on in his motion papers.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited “Loeb v Loeb, 84 AD2d 591 (2d Dept 1981)” and attributed a quotation to it; the court found 84 AD2d 591 corresponds to unrelated 3rd Dept decisions (Sanginario; First Depot) and the cited Loeb decision/quotation does not exist as represented.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on a dozen purported authorities that the court and opposing counsel identified as nonexistent case citations listed in defense filings (NYSCEF Doc No. 102).
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Hilpert v. 16 Judge SPV LLC?
- The court sanctioned the pro se plaintiff for frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 after he submitted motion papers containing fabricated case law and nonexistent quotations. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, dismissed the plaintiff's claims, and imposed a filing restriction designating the plaintiff as a vexatious litigant.
- Why does Hilpert v. 16 Judge SPV LLC matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in SC New York, with the listed outcome: Costs Order.
- What does the public record establish about Hilpert v. 16 Judge SPV LLC?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Hilpert v. 16 Judge SPV LLC 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.