June 1, 2026 (in 3 days): New York: 22 NYCRR Part 161 takes effect, system-wide AI policy for all UCS courts

Dusablon v. Gibbs

U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · S.D.N.Y. · New York bar guidance

Court sanction

Verified May 5, 2026

Citation
Dusablon v. Gibbs, No. 1:23-cv-05843 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2025)
Decided
December 9, 2025

Summary

Plaintiff's counsel in a personal injury action against Hugh A. Gibbs and Union Logistics, LLC submitted briefing containing a fabricated citation to "Spinale v. United States," 2009 WL 792089, a decision the court determined did not exist. The court attributed the nonexistent citation to unverified use of generative AI for legal research and addressed it through a certification requirement rather than a monetary fine.

AI tool:
Unspecified generative AI
This case summary is informational only. Verify the underlying opinion or order against the primary source before relying on it in any filing or client matter.

What sanction did the court impose?

No monetary penalty. The court issued a warning and ordered counsel to certify the validity of all case citations in future filings, on pain of further sanctions for noncompliance.

Why does Dusablon v. Gibbs matter for law firms using AI?

Dusablon illustrates the second-tier judicial response now common when fabricated citations surface for the first time in a case: no monetary penalty, but a standing certification requirement that shifts verification risk explicitly onto counsel. For firms tracking the malpractice exposure of generative AI use, the certification regime is the more durable artifact, since any later fabrication in the same matter becomes a documented breach of a court order rather than a first offense.

Sources

Primary 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.

Unverified claims:
  • Presiding judge's name not extracted from the order PDF (binary text-extraction blocked); docket number 1:23-cv-05843 confirmed via Justia and PacerMonitor.
  • Identity of sanctioned attorney (plaintiff's counsel of record) not independently confirmed against the order text.