Wurtenberg v. The City of New York
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County · N.Y. Sup. Ct. · New York bar guidance
Verified April 26, 2026
- Citation
- Wurtenberg v. City of New York, Nos. 155059/2016, 595561/2020, 2026 WL 144456 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Jan. 12, 2026)
- Decided
- January 12, 2026
Summary
Justice James d'Auguste granted summary judgment for defendants Mid-Town Development and Amtrak in a snowy-sidewalk personal injury action. In reply papers, defendants asked the court to sanction plaintiff's counsel for relying on fictitious legal authority. The court agreed that plaintiff's opposition contained, "consistent with the misuse of a generative artificial intelligence program," non-existent legal authority and several cases that did not stand for the propositions cited.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
No monetary sanction or formal discipline imposed. The court declined to sanction in the absence of a formal motion, but issued an on-the-record warning reminding plaintiff's counsel of the professional and ethical obligation to verify AI-generated material before filing, and cautioned that a future failure would result in sanctions. Summary judgment granted to the moving defendants with prejudice.
Why does Wurtenberg v. The City of New York matter for law firms using AI?
Wurtenberg illustrates the warning-without-sanction posture New York trial courts have begun to adopt when AI-fabricated authority surfaces in opposition papers but no formal sanctions motion is on the docket. For managing partners, the operative signal is the explicit on-record caution: the same judge has now told this attorney that a repeat occurrence will draw sanctions, which both fixes notice for any future Rule 130 motion and creates a discoverable pattern for malpractice and bar inquiries.
Sources
Further reading
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.