Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James Kaloidis
SC New York · Apr 3, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court sanctioned the plaintiff for frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, citing the submission of 23 fictitious cases and 83 instances of misrepresented legal holdings. The court determined the plaintiff's filings were generated using AI without proper verification and scheduled a hearing to set the sanction amount.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the plaintiff's conduct was frivolous under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 because it asserted false material statements and wasted judicial resources. The court noted the plaintiff failed to verify AI-generated work product despite being on notice of the errors.
- Why it matters now
- Eighty-three misstated holdings in one brief means no one read the cases; require a human-read verification log per filing.
Why this matter is tracked
In a contract dispute, the court granted the defendant's cross-motion for sanctions against the plaintiff, Kleyman Law Group, P.C., for filing submissions riddled with fictitious legal citations and materially misrepresented case holdings. The court identified at least 83 instances of misstated holdings and 23 fictitious cases cited across 19 separate filings. The court noted that the plaintiff continued this conduct even after being placed on notice by opposing counsel. The court found the plaintiff's work product appeared to be generated using artificial intelligence without adequate verification. A hearing was scheduled to determine the specific amount of sanctions and potential referral to the Attorney Grievance Committee.
Eighty-three misstated holdings in one brief means no one read the cases; require a human-read verification log per filing.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Court noted work product appeared generated through AI.
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for sanctions and granted the defendant's cross-motion for sanctions, scheduling a hearing for June 9, 2026, to determine the amount.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff represented Pace v Raisman & Assocs. as dismissing counterclaims for post-breakdown claims; court found this to be a mischaracterization of the actual holding.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff claimed Butler v Catinella involved sanctions; court found Butler does not involve sanctions and Plaintiff misstated that holding.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified 'Feder Kaszovitz LLP v Rosen, 202 AD3d 421 [1st Dept 2022]' as a non-existent (fabricated) citation repeatedly used in Plaintiff's submissions.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified 'Bauer v Cravath, Swain & Moore, LLP, 177 AD3d 479 [1st Dept 2019]' as a fictitious case cited by Plaintiff.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified 'Pine v AJA Delivery, Inc., 201 AD3d 640 [2d Dept 2022]' (listed in filings as Pine v AIA Delivery) as a fabricated citation.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court identified widespread misstatements of holdings (at least 83 instances) across many cited authorities, requiring judicial resources to correct.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James Kaloidis?
- The court sanctioned the plaintiff for frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, citing the submission of 23 fictitious cases and 83 instances of misrepresented legal holdings. The court determined the plaintiff's filings were generated using AI without proper verification and scheduled a hearing to set the sanction amount.
- Why does Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James Kaloidis matter for legal AI risk?
- Eighty-three misstated holdings in one brief means no one read the cases; require a human-read verification log per filing.
- What does the public record establish about Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James Kaloidis?
- 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 Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James Kaloidis 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.