Anderson v. AKAM Associates, Inc.

What sanction did the court impose?

At the February 13, 2026 hearing, where Anderson appeared with counsel, defense counsel asked for a $7,500 sanction on top of fees and a grievance referral. Anderson called the citation an inadvertent error made during a difficult time. Justice Frank said that "a first time, in this day and age with AI," paying the attorneys' fees "is sanction enough," that a grievance referral was not something he likes to do, and "I'll do this as a warning," adding "don't do it again," while noting defense counsel's exception. In a decision signed March 16, 2026, the court granted "the motion for sanctions and reasonable attorneys' fees," found the fees for the enforcement motion reasonable, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment against Anderson for $17,482.89. On May 14, 2026, the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed, with costs, the October 2025 order granting enforcement, fees and sanctions, holding that sanctions were justified by conduct that "included filing frivolous (and duplicate) motions and proceedings, and advancing arguments without legal or factual support."

Why does Anderson v. AKAM Associates, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?

Anderson is a settlement-enforcement dispute in which the defective citation came from a lawyer litigating her own case. After collecting more than $200,000 under a settlement, as the First Department later noted, Anderson refused to sign the stipulation of discontinuance and argued the court had no jurisdiction because the case was marked disposed. Her authority for that point, “Matter of Oppenheimer v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 457,” does not exist, and the case the court found by assuming a typo “does not at all stand for the proposition advanced by plaintiff.”

The written decisions say nothing about artificial intelligence. AI came up only at the February 2026 fee hearing: defense counsel called the case “AI-hallucinated” and asked for an additional monetary sanction and a grievance referral, and Justice Frank remarked that he was seeing more of these citations and that “this whole thing with AI is a fairly new thing.” Anderson, now with counsel, called it an inadvertent error made while she was dealing with a death in her family.

The court chose restraint. It said that “a first time, in this day and age with AI,” paying the defendants’ fees “is sanction enough,” declined a grievance referral, and gave an oral warning, then directed judgment for $17,482.89 in fees for the enforcement motion. The First Department affirmed the earlier order awarding fees and sanctions on broader grounds. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, here, a lawyer’s status as a party did not change the court’s expectation that her citations be real, and that the financial consequence came through a contractual fee award rather than a separate penalty.