Wurtenberg v. The City of New York
SC New York · Jan 12, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC New York
- Record ID
- wurtenberg-v-the-city-of-new-york-2026-01-12
- Observed outcome
- Summary judgment granted for defendants; plaintiff's counsel received a formal judicial warning regarding AI verification obligations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to plaintiff's counsel regarding the submission of AI-generated hallucinations and misrepresented legal precedents. Although the court found the conduct improper and attributed it to generative AI misuse, it declined to impose monetary or professional sanctions because no formal motion for sanctions had been filed by the defendants.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's papers relied on non-existent legal authority (fabricated cases); court found these authorities did not exist and attributed them to misuse of generative AI. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited several existing cases that the court found did not stand for the propositions for which they were cited (misrepresented precedent).
Courts now tie both fabrications and misrepresentations to a single genAI misuse finding; verify propositions, not just reporter strings.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Tort
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- generative artificial intelligence program
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Summary judgment motion decided on January 12, 2026, in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County.
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
Court identified misuse of a generative artificial intelligence program.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Assign a responsible reviewer for AI-assisted research and drafting.