Henry v. Long Island University
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York · E.D.N.Y. · New York bar guidance
Conduct
Counsel's opposition cited cases the court could not find and quotations absent from real opinions, then a correction letter called the problems typographical citation errors.
Consequence
Here the court imposed no fine but required both attorneys to file the opinion in every E.D.N.Y. case they appear in for two years.
Lesson
Here a correction letter that minimized the errors and promised a follow-up notice that never came weighed against counsel.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Henry v. Long Island University, No. 25-CV-4618 (SJB) (LGD), Memorandum and Order (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2026) (Bulsara, J.), ECF No. 32
- Decided
- September 14, 2026
Summary
Vincent E. Henry sued his former employer, Long Island University, for age discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA, the ADA and Title VII. After LIU flagged problems in his opposition to its motion to dismiss, his counsel filed a January 8, 2026 letter correcting "citation errors," taking "full responsibility," and calling some of them "typographical." Judge Sanket J. Bulsara found the letter understated the problem. The opposition cited a Westlaw number for "Nichols v. Princeton Int'l Ins. Agency" that corresponds to Senate committee testimony, presented a withdrawn Tenth Circuit opinion as a Second Circuit case, and cited "Torrence v. Kuehne v. Nagel" at a Westlaw number that is a declaration filed in another court. Counsel also told the court it had verified the remaining citations and would report any further errors, but filed nothing in the almost nine months that followed. The court's own review found more: cases it could not confirm exist (including Haynes v. Shoney's, Loewen v. Gallaudet University, Stewart v. MPI Technologies, Jiggetts v. CUNY and Scheuer v. Trustees of CUNY) and quotations not found in Williams v. New York City Housing Authority, Butcher v. Gerber Products and VKK Corp. v. National Football League. The opposition brief itself was unsigned.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the court refers to "what appears to be counsel's reliance on artificial intelligence"; no tool is named and no AI use is admitted in the order)
- Sanction amount:
- No monetary sanction; for two years, attorneys Karen Lynn Mizrahi and Brett R. Leitner must file a copy of the opinion in any E.D.N.Y. case in which they appear
What sanction did the court impose?
The court granted LIU's motion to dismiss, dismissing the ADA and Title VII claims with prejudice and granting leave to amend the ADEA claims by October 14, 2026. On the citations, it found that "[i]nstead of taking accountability for what appears to be counsel's reliance on artificial intelligence, counsel brushes off these misrepresentations to the Court as simple 'citation errors,' 'typographical' in nature." Because Henry had dismissed his counsel, the court declined "to impose any monetary or other punishment at this time." It nonetheless imposed, "[a]s a penalty for misconduct," a two-year requirement that the counsel affiliated with the filings containing fake cases, Karen Lynn Mizrahi and Brett R. Leitner, file a copy of the opinion in any Eastern District of New York case in which they appear. A footnote explains that because the brief was unsigned the court could not discern which attorney was responsible: Leitner's name and signature appear on the notice of motion and affirmation, Mizrahi's name is on the cover page, and her signature is on the correction letter.
Why does Henry v. Long Island University matter for law firms using AI?
Henry shows a court declining a fine while still attaching a lasting consequence to the lawyers. Judge Bulsara noted that Henry had dismissed his counsel and declined “to impose any monetary or other punishment at this time,” but said the court “takes very seriously counsels’ actions, and the lack of accountability,” and required Karen Lynn Mizrahi and Brett R. Leitner to file the opinion in any Eastern District of New York case in which they appear for two years.
The order’s focus is the gap between the correction letter and the record. Counsel had described the problems as “citation errors” and some as “typographical,” but the court found that the “corrected authority” for one citation “differs in both name and citation,” that a Westlaw citation pointed to a declaration filed in another district, and that the only new precedential citation offered for one proposition “does not come close to supporting his original proposition.” The court’s own review then turned up further cases it “could not confirm exists” and quotations “not found in the decision,” none of which counsel had flagged despite promising to “promptly notify the Court and counsel of any additional errors discovered.”
The AI attribution is the court’s inference, stated as an appearance rather than a finding: the court refers to “what appears to be counsel’s reliance on artificial intelligence.” Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this order, the court’s concern with accountability after the errors were raised shaped the sanction as much as the underlying citations did.
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.
- Verify a correction letter as carefully as the original brief. Here the court found the letter's replacement authorities and 'typographical' framing did not account for the problems.
- Document and complete any promised follow-up citation review; the court noted that almost nine months passed without the additional notice counsel had promised.
- Review signature practices on briefs. Here the unsigned opposition left the court unable to identify the responsible attorney, and the sanction reached both lawyers associated with the filings.
- Consider that withdrawal or client dismissal of counsel did not end the inquiry; the court still imposed a two-year notice requirement tied to future appearances.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the order says the defects reflect "what appears to be counsel's reliance on artificial intelligence"; it does not find or record any admission of AI use, and names no tool.