Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty v. Thomas Fogarty et al.
S.D. New York · Apr 29, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court sanctioned counsel $2,500 for submitting multiple fabricated citations in two memoranda of law. The court found that counsel acted in subjective bad faith by failing to verify the existence or accuracy of the cited authorities, violating Rule 11(b) by presenting misleading representations and non-existent law to the court.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that counsel's failure to verify citations, despite a stated practice of doing so, constituted a violation of Rule 11(b). The court determined that presenting AI-generated hallucinations as valid law constitutes subjective bad faith, as the citations were either non-existent or unrelated to the propositions for which they were cited.
- Why it matters now
- This case underscores that attorneys are personally responsible for verifying the existence and accuracy of all cited authorities. It confirms that relying on AI tools without independent verification constitutes subjective bad faith, justifying Rule 11 sanctions.
Why this matter is tracked
Counsel submitted two memoranda of law containing multiple fabricated case citations. The court found that counsel failed to perform any reasonable inquiry into the validity of these authorities, which included non-existent cases and misattributed reporter citations. Counsel initially claimed to follow a diligent manual verification process but later suggested that LexisNexis AI-driven features may have generated the hallucinations. The court rejected counsel's explanations as conclusory and inconsistent, finding that the submission of AI-generated hallucinations as valid law constitutes subjective bad faith. Consequently, the court imposed a monetary sanction of $2,500 and ordered counsel to provide written notice of the sanction to her client to ensure the client is aware of the professional misconduct.
This case underscores that attorneys are personally responsible for verifying the existence and accuracy of all cited authorities. It confirms that relying on AI tools without independent verification constitutes subjective bad faith, justifying Rule 11 sanctions.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Counsel stated she uses LexisNexis AI-driven features.
The court issued an order to show cause (OSC) regarding the presence of fabricated citations in two memoranda of law. Following counsel's responses, the court imposed sanctions sua sponte under Rule 11.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a Westlaw/database identifier and party name that do not match any opinion on the cited topic; the citation corresponded to an unrelated docket or jurisdiction.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Citation to a Bank of America decision that the Court could not find; reporter citation pointed to an unrelated case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a county appellate decision at a reporter citation that points to an unrelated matter; the Court could not find the cited case supporting the argument.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a 1978 First Department case that the Court could not locate; the reporter citation corresponded to an unrelated case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a Westlaw identifier and case name asserting support for service-on-clerk authority; Court found no opinion at the cited identifier and existing cases by that name did not support the proposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a non-existent case to support nail-and-mail service; Court could not locate any case by this name and reporter points to an unrelated matter.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a 1949 New York case by name and reporter citation that do not correspond to any case supporting the proposition; reporter number pointed to unrelated decisions.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty v. Thomas Fogarty et al.?
- The court sanctioned counsel $2,500 for submitting multiple fabricated citations in two memoranda of law. The court found that counsel acted in subjective bad faith by failing to verify the existence or accuracy of the cited authorities, violating Rule 11(b) by presenting misleading representations and non-existent law to the court.
- Why does Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty v. Thomas Fogarty et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This case underscores that attorneys are personally responsible for verifying the existence and accuracy of all cited authorities. It confirms that relying on AI tools without independent verification constitutes subjective bad faith, justifying Rule 11 sanctions.
- What does the public record establish about Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty v. Thomas Fogarty et al.?
- 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 Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty v. Thomas Fogarty et al. 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.