Advani v. Appellate Term, 2nd Judicial Department
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · S.D.N.Y. · New York bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff cited at least four non-existent cases plus multiple false quotations and misrepresented holdings.
Consequence
Warning from S.D.N.Y. Judge Furman; he expressly noted he would have sanctioned a lawyer.
Lesson
Furman explicitly distinguished pro se from lawyer treatment in AI-hallucination cases: pro se warning, lawyer sanctions.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Advani v. Appellate Term, 2nd Jud. Dep't, No. 1:25-cv-01627 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2025) (Furman, J.)
- Decided
- August 1, 2025
Summary
Pro se plaintiff Advani filed an opposition and sur-reply in an action against the New York Appellate Term, 2nd Judicial Department, that the court found contained at least four non-existent case citations ("Doe v. Jindal, No. 11-388, 2011 WL 3664490"; "Matter of Medical Transport v NY State Dept of Health, 294 A.D.2d 574 (2d Dept 2002)"; "Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 F.3d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 1996)"; and "Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 F.3d 807"), several false quotations attributed to cited cases, and multiple cases cited for propositions they do not support. Judge Jesse M. Furman declined to impose sanctions in light of the plaintiff's pro se status and the underlying dismissal of the case, but explicitly warned that future presentation of false citations may result in sanctions.
- AI tool:
- Implied (court suspected AI-generated fabrications; specific tool not identified)
What sanction did the court impose?
Warning issued; no monetary sanction or disciplinary referral. Judge Furman noted: "Were Advani a lawyer, the Court would consider imposing sanctions on her. But in view of the fact that she is not a lawyer and of the dismissal of this case, the Court declines to pursue the matter further and merely warns Advani that presentation of false citations, quotations, and holdings in the future may indeed result in the imposition of sanctions."
Why does Advani v. Appellate Term, 2nd Judicial Department matter for law firms using AI?
Advani v. Appellate Term is the most explicit S.D.N.Y. articulation to date of the pro se / lawyer distinction in AI-hallucination sanctions practice. Judge Furman’s note that he “would consider imposing sanctions” if Advani were a lawyer, juxtaposed with the warning-only disposition for the pro se plaintiff, gives counsel a clear citable hook for arguing that lawyer respondents should face escalated sanctions on the same facts.
For firms with S.D.N.Y. practices, three operational implications follow. First, when opposing a pro se filer with AI-fabricated citations, anticipate warning rather than sanctions; the Advani pattern is the realistic disposition. Second, when opposing counsel (not a pro se filer) is the source of fabrications, the Advani-lawyer-distinction language is directly useful for sanctions advocacy. Third, the Advani warning includes prospective language tied to future filings; tracking and citing prior warnings against the same litigant is now meaningfully connected to obtaining sanctions on a later filing.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Judge Furman's express distinction between pro se and lawyer treatment provides clear precedent for sanctions advocacy: a brief argument that opposing counsel (not a pro se litigant) is the source of fabricated citations may now move sanctions from warning to monetary.
- Multiple distinct hallucination subtypes (fabricated cases + false quotations + misrepresented holdings) in a single brief is the Advani pattern; document the pattern explicitly when moving for sanctions, not just count the fabrications.
- The Furman warning includes a forward-looking sanctions threat tied to future filings; if the same pro se litigant files again with hallucinations, this prior warning supports moving directly to sanctions.