Matter of Mendel S. v. Faigy S.
Family Court of the State of New York, Kings County · N.Y. Fam. Ct. · New York bar guidance
Conduct
Here counsel's Family Court Objection cited 16 authorities, 11 of which the court found fabricated; most real cases cited did not support his points.
Consequence
Here the court imposed a $1,000 sanction payable to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection and declined a grievance referral given counsel's response.
Lesson
Here the court credited counsel's prompt acceptance of responsibility in declining a grievance referral, but still imposed a monetary sanction.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Matter of Mendel S. v. Faigy S., 2026 NY Slip Op 26118, File No. 186725 (Fam. Ct., Kings County July 31, 2026) (Paley, J.)
- Decided
- July 31, 2026
Summary
In an Article 4 child support (IV-D) proceeding in Kings County Family Court, counsel for one party, identified in the published decision only by the pseudonym "Connor C., Esq.," filed an Objection under Family Court Act section 439(e) challenging a support magistrate's order dismissing a child support petition for failure to appear. Reviewing the Objection, the court found that counsel "repeatedly cited 'hallucinated cases'" and that "[e]leven of the sixteen citations were fabricated, and in nearly all instances, the real cases (once located by the Court) did not support the propositions for which counsel cited them." Suspecting that the citations came from counsel's use of generative AI that he did not properly review, the court issued a sua sponte order to show cause why it should not sanction counsel or refer him to the Attorney Grievance Committee under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Counsel's written response included an affirmation, a log of all citations with his post hoc review, a certificate for a one-hour CLE course on AI, ethics, and law firm AI policy, and four character letters. His first affirmation was not made under penalty of perjury as CPLR 2106 requires; the court granted leave and he filed a compliant one.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI, tool not named (the court said counsel cited "hallucinated cases" and "suspected" they were produced through counsel's use of generative artificial intelligence; counsel took "sole responsibility for submitting hallucinated cases")
- Sanction amount:
- $1,000 payable by counsel to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection of the State of New York within 20 days; no referral to the Attorney Grievance Committee
What sanction did the court impose?
Judge Laura M. Paley found counsel's conduct frivolous under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 because he filed an Objection that repeatedly cited fictitious cases and authorities that did not support his arguments, when checking them on Westlaw or Lexis "would have taken minimal time." The court also found the conduct wasted judicial resources in Family Court, where Objections are an additional burden on judges handling heavy support dockets. In mitigation, it noted that counsel timely responded, took sole responsibility, blamed no one else in his firm, and submitted an affirmation the court found "earnest and remorseful," while quoting a federal decision that "regret and apologies are not necessarily enough to avoid the imposition of sanctions ...." Surveying sanctions imposed elsewhere, the court ordered counsel to pay $1,000 to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection within 20 days of service and to file proof of payment within 10 days after paying. It declined to refer him to the Attorney Grievance Committee.
Why does Matter of Mendel S. v. Faigy S. matter for law firms using AI?
Judge Paley’s published decision situates one Family Court filing within the broader duty of technological competence. The court acknowledged that AI “brings with it great opportunity for attorneys to increase efficiency and productivity,” but observed that “far too often, the use of AI leads to the opposite outcome,” and quoted the New York Rules of Professional Conduct commentary that a lawyer “should keep abreast of the benefits and risks associated with technology the lawyer uses.” It then applied the Second and Third Departments’ 2026 decisions treating fictitious citations as frivolous conduct under Part 130.
The sanction reflects a weighing of aggravating and mitigating facts. Counsel’s response was prompt and accepted sole responsibility, and the court contrasted that with the Third Department’s decision in Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v LeTennier, where fake citations multiplied after notice. At the same time, the court was “troubled” that counsel’s first affirmation was not sworn under penalty of perjury “especially in light of the issue before the Court,” and it relied on the principle that sanctions serve deterrence as well as punishment. It chose a $1,000 payment to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection and no grievance referral, citing Idehen v Stoute-Phillip for the view that candid acknowledgment can make a sanction alone sufficient.
The decision also emphasizes the institutional cost. Objections to support magistrates’ orders are the only route of review, and they are decided by Family Court judges on top of their regular calendars; “[u]sing resources already stretched thin to wade through and inspect fabricated cases is a poor use of judicial resources.” Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider applying the same citation-verification protocol to Family Court objections and motions as to appellate work.
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 citations in Family Court Objections as carefully as in appellate briefs. The court stressed that Objections are the only review of a support magistrate's decision and consume scarce judicial time.
- Document responses to a show-cause order in proper form. The court was troubled that counsel's first affirmation was not made under penalty of perjury.
- Train attorneys on AI tools before use. The court cited the Rule 1.1 technology-competence commentary and noted that counsel's response to the order to show cause included a certificate for a one-hour CLE on AI, ethics, and law firm AI policy.