Sharei Torah v. Hendel
SC New York · Jun 1, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC New York
- Record ID
- sharei-torah-v-hendel-2026-06-01
- Observed outcome
- The court struck the defendant's amended answer, entered a default against the defendant, and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's legal fees.
- Known monetary consequence
- $1
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- Fabricated Citations
- Misrepresented Holdings
- Fabricated Exhibits And Submissions
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- $1
- Procedural posture
- 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.
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
The court identified the errors as likely resulting from AI-based tools.
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
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.