Sharei Torah v. Hendel
SC New York · Jun 1, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court struck the defendant's pleadings and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's legal fees after finding the defendant submitted filings containing fabricated case law and misrepresented authorities, which the court attributed to the use of artificial intelligence tools.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the defendant's repeated submission of inaccurate citations, fictitious cases, and misleading holdings constituted frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. The court noted these inconsistencies were exemplary of AI-generated content and determined that such conduct, combined with unsupported assertions of bankruptcy, warranted striking the defendant's pleadings and imposing monetary sanctions for the plaintiff's legal fees.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates the judicial response to pro se litigants using AI to generate legal filings. It highlights the court's authority to strike pleadings and impose monetary sanctions when AI-generated hallucinations result in frivolous conduct and the submission of fabricated legal authorities.
Why this matter is tracked
In a contract dispute, the court addressed a pro se defendant's filings containing multiple fabricated case citations, misrepresented holdings, and non-existent pin cites. The court explicitly identified these errors as likely resulting from the use of artificial intelligence tools. The defendant attempted to stay the action through a notice of removal without supporting documentation. Finding the defendant's conduct frivolous under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the court struck the defendant's amended answer, entered a default against the defendant, and ordered the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff for legal fees incurred in responding to the frivolous filings. The court also denied the defendant's subsequent motions to dismiss, citing prior preclusion orders.
This case illustrates the judicial response to pro se litigants using AI to generate legal filings. It highlights the court's authority to strike pleadings and impose monetary sanctions when AI-generated hallucinations result in frivolous conduct and the submission of fabricated legal authorities.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court identified the errors as likely resulting from AI-based tools.
The matter involved multiple motions (Mot. Seq. 009, 010, 011) regarding default judgment, sanctions for frivolous conduct, and motions to dismiss, decided by the Supreme Court of New York, Queens County, on June 1, 2026.
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 | Cited a non-existent case caption and citation; court could not find any case titled 'Ennis v. Lessing' at the cited reporter.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a non-existent holding/quote to Mullane; the quoted language does not appear in the Mullane opinion at the cited pin cite.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Overstated and mischaracterized the holding of Waco by asserting state court proceedings are 'void' after removal; the court found the offered pin cite and characterization inaccurate.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Misstated the Things Remembered holding to suggest only a federal court may determine procedural defects in removal; the pin cite did not support that sweeping proposition.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Referenced a 'Standing Order of Reference' (12 Misc. 00032) and an involuntary bankruptcy petition but provided no supporting court order or petition; the court found these documentary assertions unsupported/absent from the filing.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Sharei Torah v. Hendel?
- The court struck the defendant's pleadings and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's legal fees after finding the defendant submitted filings containing fabricated case law and misrepresented authorities, which the court attributed to the use of artificial intelligence tools.
- Why does Sharei Torah v. Hendel matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates the judicial response to pro se litigants using AI to generate legal filings. It highlights the court's authority to strike pleadings and impose monetary sanctions when AI-generated hallucinations result in frivolous conduct and the submission of fabricated legal authorities.
- What does the public record establish about Sharei Torah v. Hendel?
- 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 Sharei Torah v. Hendel 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.