Docket entry 492, 30 April 2026 · source · PDF · 9 pages
Docket text. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court imposes a monetary sanction of $1,500 upon attorney Harry R. Thomasson, Esq., that must be paid by him into the Registry of this Court on or before May 15, 2026. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 4/30/2026. (ELR) (Entered: 04/30/2026)
Thomasson 3280 Sunrise Highway, Ste Box 112 Wantagh, NY 11793 Defendant Appearing Pro Se No appearances by other Parties WICKS, Magistrate Judge: While this case has had its fair share of discovery disputes and countless motion practice, the Court is now confronted with an issue that attorneys should never want to be a part of: the use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) to assist in the drafting of legal papers that results in the creation of a legal submission containing citations to fictitious or non-existent legal authority – commonly referred to as “hallucinated” or fake case citations.
Thomasson, Esq. (“Thomasson”) relied upon AI-generated content that created fictitious legal citations. That conduct unquestionably violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
The Court issued a sua sponte Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) on April 20, 2026, directing Thomasson to show cause, in writing, why the Court should not impose sanctions upon him for the conduct indicated in Superb Plaintiffs' 1 reply brief at ECF No. 372 for the fabricated cites in Thomasson's opposition filed at ECF No. 353.
(ECF No. 353.) However, that opposition contained non-existent case citations. While Superb Plaintiffs pointed to only one case, “In re Amica Mut.
Supp. 3d at 460 (same and imposing sanctions under Rule 11 for the use of non-existent judicial opinions). NYRPC § 1.1 states that “[a] lawyer should provide competent representation to a client.
Ct. 2026) (citing id.) Unfortunately, reliance on AI-generated hallucinated cites in legal briefs remains a concern for the Courts, notwithstanding the years and number of publicized cases on the topic. See Hall, 2025 WL 2256653, at *4 (“Regrettably, the number and regularity with which courts have been faced with hallucinations in court filings continues to rise both in this country and abroad.”) The number of court filings with non-existent cases is rising rapidly.
See Hall, 2025 WL 2256653, at *4 (“Regrettably, the number and regularity with which courts have been faced with hallucinations in court filings continues to rise both in this country and abroad.”) The number of court filings with non-existent cases is rising rapidly. See Damien Charlotin, AI Hallucination Cases, (Apr. 29, 2026) https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/ (database tracking legal decisions “in cases where generative AI produced hallucinated content,” evidencing 919 cases to date).
3d 251, 258 (S.D.N.Y . 2024) (collecting cases) (“There is no doubt that sanctions can be imposed on at least some of these grounds for the citation to non-existent cases); Cartagena v. Dixon, No.