Burnett v. The City of New York
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County · N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. · New York bar guidance
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Burnett v. City of New York, No. 160676/2023, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 35046(U), 2025 WL 3780566 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Dec. 31, 2025)
- Decided
- December 31, 2025
Summary
Plaintiff's counsel in a negligence action against the City of New York and affiliated agencies opposed defendants' summary judgment motion by citing Backus v. City of Rochester, 148 AD3d 1697 [4th Dept 2017], a decision the court was "unable to locate in any legal databases." Justice Paul A. Goetz granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, in the same order, directed plaintiff's counsel to appear and show cause why he should not be sanctioned for citing a nonexistent case.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
Summary judgment granted in defendants' favor with costs. Plaintiff's counsel ordered to show cause on January 22, 2026 why he should not be sanctioned for citing a nonexistent case. The order does not name the AI tool involved or impose a monetary sanction at this stage.
Why does Burnett v. The City of New York matter for law firms using AI?
Burnett illustrates the now-routine New York Supreme Court response to suspected AI-generated citations: the trial judge issues an order to show cause built into the merits decision itself, rather than waiting for a separate motion. For firms in New York County practice, the order’s brevity is the lesson. A single unverifiable citation, dropped into an opposition brief, was enough to convert a routine summary judgment loss into a personal sanctions proceeding against counsel.
Sources
Further reading
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.