Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc.
New York Supreme Court, Kings County · Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. · New York bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se defendants used AI software for motion papers; at least five hallucinations, including a fabricated Graziano case re-cited across sections and a confirming exhibit.
Consequence
July 16, 2025 order set a July 28 hearing on financial sanctions for AI-rule noncompliance; per secondary reporting the follow-up decision imposed none.
Lesson
Re-citing a fabricated case across brief sections, plus a confirming exhibit, is the aggravating pattern that moved Kings County toward a sanctions hearing.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc., No. 522188/2024, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 51113(U), 2025 WL 2006010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. July 16, 2025) (Maslow, J.); follow-up decision at 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 25229 (Oct. 23, 2025)
- Decided
- July 16, 2025
Summary
In a New York Labor Law wage action in Kings County Supreme Court, the pro se defendants Barry and Boris Itzkowitz used artificial intelligence software to prepare their motion papers. Justice Aaron D. Maslow found at least five hallucinations in one memorandum of law. The lead example: a "Graziano v. County of Nassau, 202 AD3d 707" cited for the proposition that "discovery cannot resuscitate claims," where the reporter citation actually points to People v. Devore, a criminal case, and no "Graziano v. County of Nassau" appears to exist. The defendants re-cited the nonexistent Graziano in a later section and attached an exhibit purporting to confirm its holding. The court also found Bellefonte Re Insurance and Y.A. v. Conair Corp. cited for propositions those cases do not contain, and a bare "Perez" citation it could not locate at all.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the court found the defendants used 'artificial intelligence software'; no specific tool named)
What sanction did the court impose?
The July 16, 2025 order is a supplemental decision. It recapped the court's May 29 order, which had denied the defendants' AI-assisted motions and required them to comply with the court's AI-certification rule (IAS Part 2, Subpart B, Section 15). Because the defendants did not file the required certification by the June 13 deadline, the court ordered them to appear at a July 28, 2025 hearing on whether financial sanctions were warranted for the noncompliance. The follow-up decision (2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 25229, Oct. 23, 2025) imposed no monetary sanctions, applying leniency to the pro se defendants while chastising them and issuing a forewarning.
Why does Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc. is one of the more consequential state-court AI-hallucination orders to date. The aggravating facts (a single fabricated case re-cited across multiple brief sections, a defendant-prepared exhibit purporting to confirm the fabricated holding, and two real cases misrepresented in support of the same arguments) push the conduct beyond single-occurrence warning territory toward financial sanctions. Justice Maslow’s order conditions sanctions on compliance with applicable AI rules and a forthcoming hearing, leaving the financial outcome open but the sanctions trajectory clearly upward.
For firms practicing in Kings County Supreme Court, two implications follow. First, the warning-first pattern that has dominated S.D.N.Y. and other federal districts is not controlling in Kings County state-court practice when the conduct involves multiple instances of a fabricated citation plus an exhibit. Second, the court’s reference to “applicable AI rules” suggests Kings County may have or be developing local AI-disclosure standards; before filing, check for any recent standing orders from the assigned justice. Augustin marks a state-court inflection point comparable to Yaroshevsky v. Karlin in E.D.N.Y. (recommended adverse costs against pro se).
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.
- In Kings County practice, Justice Maslow has signaled that re-citing the same fabricated case across multiple sections and exhibits is an aggravating factor that takes the case out of the warning-only zone.
- Compliance with applicable AI rules (per court order) suggests Kings County may have or be developing local AI-disclosure rules; check the court's most recent orders for any standing AI-rule language before responding.
- When a brief includes an exhibit purporting to confirm a fabricated citation (the Augustin Exhibit M), the conduct moves from negligent miscitation toward a fraud-on-the-court analysis; flag the exhibit-confirmation pattern explicitly in any sanctions motion.