Wurtenberg v. The City of New York

What did the court warn about?

No sanction. The court "declines to impose sanctions in the absence of a formal motion seeking this relief," but in its written decision "reminds plaintiff's counsel that he has a professional and ethical obligation to verify all AI-generated data before this material can be used in a court submission and cautions him that a future failure to abide by this obligation will result in sanctions being imposed." Summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed against the moving defendants with prejudice.

Why does Wurtenberg v. The City of New York matter for law firms using AI?

Wurtenberg shows a New York trial court declining, “in the exercise of its discretion,” to impose sanctions absent a formal motion, while putting counsel on notice in writing. The court found that the opposition contained “non-existent legal authority and several cases that do not stand for the proposition for which they are cited,” which it described as “consistent with the misuse of a generative artificial intelligence program.” Its decision then cautions that “a future failure to abide by this obligation will result in sanctions being imposed.” The court reached only the fictitious-authority ground (“at a minimum”), not the alleged misstatement of the factual record. For firms, the caution is now on the record should the attorney repeat the conduct.