Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James Kaloidis
SC New York · Apr 3, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC New York
- Record ID
- kleyman-law-group-pc-v-james-kaloidis-2026-04-03
- Observed outcome
- Defendant's cross-motion for sanctions against the plaintiff was granted; hearing scheduled to determine amount.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Eighty-three misstated holdings in one brief means no one read the cases; require a human-read verification log per filing.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- 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.
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
Court noted work product appeared generated through AI.
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.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.