Landberg v City of New York
App. NY (2d) · May 20, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court issued an order to show cause requiring counsel to explain why sanctions or costs should not be imposed for filing briefs containing fabricated or erroneous legal authority. This procedural step initiates a formal inquiry into potential misconduct regarding the accuracy of legal research presented to the court.
- Why the court cared
- The linked record identifies tort and trial and records Order to Show Cause. This page does not infer judicial reasoning beyond the source.
- Why it matters now
- This case highlights the judiciary's active monitoring of filings for fabricated legal authority. It serves as a reminder that counsel bears ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of research, regardless of the tools used to generate it.
Why this matter is tracked
The New York Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, issued an order to show cause directed at counsel for the appellant, Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff, PLLC, and Michael Sanders, Esq. The court initiated this proceeding on its own motion to determine whether sanctions or costs should be imposed under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. The inquiry stems from the filing of appellate briefs that allegedly contained fabricated or erroneous legal authority and citations. The parties were directed to submit affirmations or affidavits by June 3, 2026, to address the potential imposition of sanctions for these filings. The order was entered on May 20, 2026, by the Clerk of the Court.
This case highlights the judiciary's active monitoring of filings for fabricated legal authority. It serves as a reminder that counsel bears ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of research, regardless of the tools used to generate it.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The source document does not explicitly name an AI tool; attribution is implied by the nature of the errors.
Order to Show Cause issued by the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, on May 20, 2026.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Landberg v City of New York?
- The court issued an order to show cause requiring counsel to explain why sanctions or costs should not be imposed for filing briefs containing fabricated or erroneous legal authority. This procedural step initiates a formal inquiry into potential misconduct regarding the accuracy of legal research presented to the court.
- Why does Landberg v City of New York matter for legal AI risk?
- This case highlights the judiciary's active monitoring of filings for fabricated legal authority. It serves as a reminder that counsel bears ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of research, regardless of the tools used to generate it.
- What does the public record establish about Landberg v City of New York?
- 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 Landberg v City of New York 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.