Landberg v City of New York
CA NY (2d) · Jun 23, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court imposed a total of $10,500 in monetary sanctions against an attorney and his law firm for filing a brief containing fabricated citations and misrepresentations of law generated by AI. The court found the conduct frivolous, citing the attorney's failure to verify AI output and his lack of candor during proceedings.
- Why the court cared
- The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Brief cited a nonexistent New York case for the standard of appellate review of summary judgment..
- Why it matters now
- The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
Why this matter is tracked
In Landberg v City of New York, the CA NY (2d) addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a lawyer filing. The linked source records that brief cited a nonexistent New York case for the standard of appellate review of summary judgment. The recorded procedural consequence is Monetary Sanction. The entry is dated 2026-06-23. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The attorney admitted to using free, publicly available AI tools.
The court issued an order to show cause on its own motion following oral argument, leading to a formal decision and order on motion imposing sanctions.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited a nonexistent New York case for the standard of appellate review of summary judgment.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief mischaracterized the holding of a real case by attributing a rule about construing remedial statute exceptions that the opinion does not contain.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief represented that Rodgers held a two-year records search can be sufficient to establish lack of prior written notice; Rodgers did not address that issue.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited a nonexistent Court of Appeals opinion and attributed a fabricated quotation about construing Admin. Code § 7-210 liberally.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief quoted a fictitious appellate decision as declaring owners are 'in the best position to monitor and control' adjacent walkways; no such opinion exists at the cited citation.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Landberg v City of New York?
- The court imposed a total of $10,500 in monetary sanctions against an attorney and his law firm for filing a brief containing fabricated citations and misrepresentations of law generated by AI. The court found the conduct frivolous, citing the attorney's failure to verify AI output and his lack of candor during proceedings.
- Why does Landberg v City of New York matter for legal AI risk?
- The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
- What does the public record establish about Landberg v City of New York?
- Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
- 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.