Sharei Torah v. Hendel
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County (Commercial Division) · N.Y. Sup. Ct. · New York bar guidance
Conduct
Here a pro se defendant cited a nonexistent case, attributed quotations that do not appear in Mullane and Traguth, and filed an unsupported removal notice.
Consequence
Here the court struck his answer, entered a default for fraud on the court, and ordered him to reimburse plaintiff's fees for answering the removal notice.
Lesson
Here the court combined fictitious citations with other misleading filings to find fraud on the court, a remedy that ended his defense on liability, with an inquest on damages to follow.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Sharei Torah v. Hendel, 2026 NY Slip Op 50994(U), 89 Misc 3d 1218(A), Index No. 701131/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens County June 1, 2026) (Livote, J.)
- Decided
- June 1, 2026
Summary
Sharei Torah, a nonprofit, sued Rabbi Mendel Hendel, Rabbi Menachem Shagalow, and a yeshiva over unpaid rent. After his counsel withdrew, Hendel, representing himself, filed a "Notice of Removal" on NYSCEF asserting that an involuntary Chapter 7 petition had been filed against him and that a Southern District of New York standing order referred the case to the bankruptcy court. The filing did not include the standing order or the petition, gave no case number, and did not identify the petitioning creditor, and the court found he had not provided proof of any petition "either now in his opposition to the instant motion or earlier." Opposing plaintiff's later motion, he quoted Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Traguth v. Zuck for language the court found "nowhere to be found" in either opinion; cited "Ennis v. Lessing, 84 AD3d 1508," a case the court could not find (that citation belongs to People v Parker); and offered pin cites to City of Waco v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. and Things Remembered v. Petrarca that did not support his characterizations. The court also found he had deceptively truncated a quotation from plaintiff's counsel's letter. It stated that these inconsistencies "appear to be exemplary of the result of using artificial intelligence-based tools to draft legal documents," which Hendel denied.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the court said the defects "appear to be exemplary of the result of using artificial intelligence-based tools"; the defendant denied using AI)
- Sanction amount:
- Defendant Mendel Hendel's amended answer struck and default entered for fraud on the court; Hendel to reimburse plaintiff's legal fees for four NYSCEF filings responding to his notice of removal, amount to be fixed on submission
What sanction did the court impose?
Justice Leonard Livote found that Hendel's "repeated false and misleading submissions," including the unsupported notice of removal, fictitious cases, non-existent pin cites, overstated holdings, and selective quotation, amounted to fraud on the court under CDR Creances S.A.S. v Cohen. The court struck his amended answer and found him in default; the other two defendants were also held in default for failing to appear (the yeshiva, without counsel), and the action was set down for an inquest on damages. The court separately held his conduct frivolous and sanctionable under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 and ordered him to reimburse plaintiff's legal fees for preparing and filing NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 93 through 96, its responses to the notice of removal, in an amount to be fixed on plaintiff's fee submission. It declared the notice of removal of no force and effect. The court reminded all parties that submissions, "even if made by an unrepresented litigant, must not be frivolous." Plaintiff's cross-motion and both sides' other motions, including Hendel's request to sanction plaintiff's counsel, were denied.
Why does Sharei Torah v. Hendel matter for law firms using AI?
The Queens County decision is an example of fabricated authority contributing to a case-ending remedy. The court did not treat the invented Ennis v. Lessing citation and the misattributed quotations in isolation. It grouped them with an unsupported notice of removal, which Hendel used to claim that the action had been removed and stayed, and with a truncated quotation of opposing counsel’s letter that the court found “deceptive.” Together these supported a finding of fraud on the court under the Court of Appeals’ standard in CDR Creances, which permits striking a pleading on clear and convincing evidence that a party lied to the court intentionally and repeatedly about issues central to the truth-finding process.
The court’s treatment of the AI question was careful. It observed that the “aforementioned inconsistences appear to be exemplary of the result of using artificial intelligence-based tools to draft legal documents,” noted that Hendel denied using such tools, and did not resolve the point. Instead it reminded the parties that submissions to the court, “even if made by an unrepresented litigant, must not be frivolous under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.”
The decision also rejected Hendel’s argument that pro se litigants deserve extra latitude, noting that the quotation he offered for that point from Traguth v. Zuck does not appear in the opinion and that the Second Department has held a pro se appearance confers no greater rights than other litigants have. The court identified the defective authorities through its own review; it declined to consider plaintiff’s reply papers because its order to show cause did not permit replies. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that a court may check an unrepresented party’s quotations line by line on its own, and that the resulting findings can support relief well beyond the citation problem itself.
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 every quotation a self-represented adversary attributes to a case. Here the court checked Mullane, Traguth, Waco, and Things Remembered and found the quoted language or pin cites unsupported.
- Document the complete record of an adversary's filings. The court identified the fabricated and misattributed authorities itself, and its fraud-on-the-court finding rested on a pattern across several filings, not one citation.
- Review communications with unrepresented parties for tone. The decision states that "it appears the conduct between Plaintiff's counsel and unrepresented Defendants has devolved into name-calling, disparagement, and personal attacks," and quotes counsel's emails.