AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesLabatt USA Operating v. Friends Beverage Group
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Labatt USA Operating v. Friends Beverage Group

SC New York · Dec 30, 2025

NY / stateEditorial impact: mediumfake citationscontracttrialStruck Filing
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court struck the defendants' opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment because the filings contained hallucinated case citations generated by artificial intelligence. As a result of this sanction, the court treated the plaintiff's motion as unopposed, ultimately granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found defendants' opposition and cross-motion contained hallucinated/fabricated case citations generated by AI; filings were stricken.
Why it matters now
Strike-and-treat-as-unopposed is now a real remedy; have a second attorney verify every AI-drafted citation before filing.

Why this matter is tracked

In a breach of contract action, the Supreme Court of New York struck the defendants' opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment after finding the filings were drafted using artificial intelligence and contained hallucinated case citations. By interim order dated March 17, 2025, the court determined that the defendants had twice utilized AI to generate these fabricated authorities. Consequently, the court treated the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as unopposed. The court subsequently granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the first and third causes of action, dismissing the defendants' counterclaims and awarding the plaintiff $1,106,281.05 in damages, plus interest, while allowing for a supplemental filing regarding attorney's fees.

Operational lesson

Strike-and-treat-as-unopposed is now a real remedy; have a second attorney verify every AI-drafted citation before filing.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtSC New York
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateDec 30, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe defendants' opposition and cross-motion were stricken; the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted as unopposed.
Known amount$1,106,281
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

The court noted the use of artificial intelligence but did not name the specific tool.

Procedural posture

The court issued an interim order on March 17, 2025, striking the defendants' opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment. A final Decision and Order on the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was issued on December 30, 2025.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Court found defendants' opposition and cross-motion contained hallucinated/fabricated case citations generated by AI; filings were stricken.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Labatt USA Operating v. Friends Beverage Group?
The court struck the defendants' opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment because the filings contained hallucinated case citations generated by artificial intelligence. As a result of this sanction, the court treated the plaintiff's motion as unopposed, ultimately granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Why does Labatt USA Operating v. Friends Beverage Group matter for legal AI risk?
Strike-and-treat-as-unopposed is now a real remedy; have a second attorney verify every AI-drafted citation before filing.
What does the public record establish about Labatt USA Operating v. Friends Beverage Group?
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 Labatt USA Operating v. Friends Beverage Group 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.

Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. STI-NY, LLCSC New York · May 28, 2026same court · fake citations + contractEllen Michaelis v. Wilmington Savings Fund SocietySC New York · Apr 3, 2026same court · fake citations + contractDeutsche Bank National Bank v. Jean LeTennierSC New York · Jan 8, 2026same court · fake citations + contractGrymes Development Company v. FoderaSC New York · Nov 10, 2025same court · fake citations + contractBrown v. Real Estate Capital of America et al.SC New York · Aug 7, 2026same court · fake citations + contractKleyman Law Group, P.C. v. KaloidisSC New York · Aug 4, 2026same court · fake citations + contract