Facey v. Fisher
New York Supreme Court, New York County · N.Y. Sup. Ct. · New York bar guidance
Verified May 5, 2026
- Citation
- Facey v. Fisher, 2025 NY Slip Op 33456(U), Index No. 152088/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Sept. 15, 2025) (Rosado, J.)
- Decided
- September 15, 2025
Summary
Plaintiff's counsel in a legal malpractice action before Justice Mary V. Rosado submitted opposition papers citing four authorities the court could not verify: two cases (James v. City of New York and Board of Mgrs. of 28 Cliff St. Condominium v. Maguire) whose reporter citations pointed to unrelated decisions, and two cases (Xiong v. Knight and Johnson v. Stadtlander) that do not exist. The court inferred the citations were the product of "artificial intelligence applications and/or chatbots" used without verification, and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint along with sanctions, observing that "this Court rarely, if ever grants sanctions, but in this case, the Court finds them warranted."
- AI tool:
- not named (court directed counsel to file affirmation disclosing AI/chatbot use)
What sanction did the court impose?
Costs and attorney's fees awarded to defendants on the sanctions motion, with the amount to be fixed after defendants' fee application. The court further ordered plaintiff's counsel to submit, within five days, an affirmation disclosing whether and how generative AI was used to prepare the filing and explaining the false citations. The amended complaint was dismissed.
Why does Facey v. Fisher matter for law firms using AI?
Facey is useful for managing partners because the court did not require an explicit admission of AI use to impose sanctions: four unverifiable citations in a single brief were enough for the court to draw the inference and shift fees. The five-day affirmation requirement also illustrates a growing pattern in New York trial courts of treating AI-disclosure obligations as a remedial step distinct from the underlying sanction, meaning a firm can face both a fee award and a compelled written explanation that becomes part of the public record.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- https://blog.bluestonelawfirm.com/2025/09/uncategorized/legal-malpractice-deceit-ai-hallucinations-and-sanctions/
- Document mirror (Damien Charlotin hallucination database, Westlaw printout)
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.
- Final fee award amount not yet fixed at the time of the order; the court directed defendants to submit a fee application.
- Sanctioned attorney's name not stated in the publicly available portions of the slip opinion reviewed.