Wheat v. Vichie
New York Supreme Court, New York County · Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. · New York bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se litigant cited a single fabricated case in two different Appellate Division departments to support the same proposition.
Consequence
Warning issued by N.Y. Supreme Court; further false citations may result in sanctions.
Lesson
NY state courts apply the warning-then-sanctions pattern; same case cited to two departments is a fabrication tell.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Wheat v. Vichie, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 34208(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Nov. 3, 2025) (Frank, J.)
- Decided
- November 3, 2025
Summary
In a New York County Supreme Court action, a pro se plaintiff opposed a motion to dismiss with papers that, Justice Lyle E. Frank found, misstated the holdings of cited cases and included two citations to "what appears to be entirely fictional cases." The plaintiff cited "Sosnovska v. Belle World Beauty, Inc." as both a First Department and a Second Department Appellate Division decision. The court found no such case in either department. It noted that the fabrications could be "the result of reliance on AI or otherwise."
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the court noted the fabrications could be 'the result of reliance on AI or otherwise'; no specific tool named)
What sanction did the court impose?
The court granted the motion to dismiss in part. On the citation problem, it imposed no monetary sanction or disciplinary referral. It cautioned the plaintiff to refrain from making false representations to a court, and warned that "further citations to non-existent cases or misrepresentations of case holdings will result in sanctions."
Why does Wheat v. Vichie matter for law firms using AI?
Wheat v. Vichie is a clean example of a state-court fabrication warning, extending the federal pattern (Park v. Kim, Mata v. Avianca, Anonymous v. NYC DOE) into New York Supreme Court practice. Justice Frank did not impose monetary sanctions or a disciplinary referral, instead issuing a warning calibrated to the litigant’s pro se status. The court did not make a finding that AI produced the citations; it noted only that the fabrications could be “the result of reliance on AI or otherwise.”
The detail worth keeping is the tell. The plaintiff cited the same fictional case, “Sosnovska v. Belle World Beauty,” as both a First Department and a Second Department decision. One fabricated name placed in two appellate departments to support the same proposition is the kind of pattern that flags AI generation even when the court does not say so. For firms with N.Y. state-court practices, Wheat v. Vichie signals that the trial-level state bench is applying the same warning-then-sanctions escalation that has become standard in federal court. Adding an Appellate-Division-department verification step to cite-checking catches exactly this fabrication shape.
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.
- When opposing a pro se litigant in N.Y. state court who cites Appellate Division authority, verify the case appears in the cited department's published decisions. Fabricated cites often misattribute department or term.
- The same case name cited to two different appellate departments to support the same proposition is a strong fabrication signal worth flagging in opposition briefing.