Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty v. Thomas Fogarty et al.
S.D. New York · Apr 29, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- S.D. New York
- Record ID
- sai-malena-jimenez-fogarty-v-thomas-fogarty-et-al-2026-04-29
- Observed outcome
- The court imposed a $2,500 monetary sanction and ordered counsel to provide written notice of the sanction to her client.
- Known monetary consequence
- $2,500
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- LexisNexis
- Known monetary consequence
- $2,500
- Procedural posture
- 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.
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
Counsel stated she uses LexisNexis AI-driven features.
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
- Implement mandatory manual verification of all case citations against primary sources before filing.
- Document the verification process for every cited authority to demonstrate compliance with Rule 11(b).
- Avoid reliance on AI-generated research summaries without confirming the underlying case law exists.
- Ensure clients are informed of any sanctions imposed due to counsel's failure to maintain citation integrity.