Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc. (May 29, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
Kings County v. Formula Brooklyn Inc
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
New York (NY)
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Decided
May 29, 2025
Disposition
Motion Denied
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc.Supreme Court, Kings County, New York. | July 16, 2025 | Slip Copy | 86 Misc.3d 1236(A)Document Detailsstandard Citation:Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc., 86 Misc. 3d 1236(A) (N.Y. Sup.Ct. 2025)All Citations:Slip Copy, 86 Misc.3d 1236(A), 2025 WL 2006010 (Table), 2025 N.Y.Slip Op. 51113(U)Search DetailsSearch Query:adv: (openai "artificial intelligence" chatgpt "google gemini" "westlawcocounsel" "large language model") (hallucinat! fake fictitious spuriousnonexistent "non-existent" "made up" imagined /p (gpt ai "artificialintelligence" chatgpt chaton perplexity openai copilot "google gemini""google bard" grok "mata v. avianca" claude llm llms)) (hallucinat! fakefictitious spurious nonexistent "non-existent" "made up" imagined) +3(precedent case "legal authority" "legal case") & DATE(aft 1/1/2023)Jurisdiction:New YorkDelivery DetailsDate:August 1, 2025 at 3:29 AMDelivered By: Client ID:NOCLIENTIDOutlineAttorneys and LawFirms (p.1)Opinion (p.1)All Citations (p.6)
Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc., Slip Copy (2025)86 Misc.3d 1236(A), 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 51113(U) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.186 Misc.3d 1236(A)Unreported DispositionNOTE: THIS OPINION WILL NOT APPEARIN A PRINTED VOLUME. THE DISPOSITIONWILL APPEAR IN THE REPORTER.This opinion is uncorrected and will not bepublished in the printed Official Reports.Supreme Court, Kings County, New York.Louis Max J. AUGUSTIN, ReginaldHubert Prince, Paul Andre Dalus,and Lesly Pierre, Plaintiffs,v.FORMULA 3 BROOKLYNINC., Barry Itzkowitz, andBoris Itzkowitz, Defendants.Index No. 522188/2024|Decided on July 16, 2025Attorneys and Law FirmsArenson, Dittmar & Karban, New York City (AviMermelstein of counsel), for plaintiff.Barry Itzkowitz, defendant pro se.Boris Itzkowitz, defendant pro se.OpinionAaron D. Maslow, J.**1 The following numbered papers were used on thismotion: NYSCEF Document Numbers 23-24, 34-81.The order of this Court dated May 29, 2025 is herebysupplemented to the extent set forth herein.BackgroundPlaintiffs Louis Max J. Augustin, ReginaldPrince, Paul Andre Dalus, and Lesly Pierre(collectively “Plaintiffs”) brought this complaintagainst Defendants Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc.,Barry Itzkowitz, and Boris Itzkowitz (collectively“Defendants”) for Defendants’ alleged failure to payminimum wage, overtime compensation, and othermonies required by the New York Labor Law.Plaintiffs moved pursuant to CPLR § 3025 (b) to begranted leave to amend their complaint due to claimsallegedly left off in an error of inadvertence (MotionSequence No. 6). Defendants moved for an extensionof time so that Defendant Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc.(“Formula 3”) could retain counsel as required bylaw and for an extension of the answer deadline sothat Formula 3 could respond timely to the complaintand properly defend itself. Formula 3 was previouslyappearing in this action by Barry Itzkowitz pro sein noncompliance with CPLR 321 (a), which statesin relevant part that, “a corporation or voluntaryassociation shall appear by attorney.” Defendants also,using artificial intelligence software, submitted anextensive motion (Motion Sequence No. 7), the cruxof which requested that the Court deny Plaintiffs’motion for leave to amend the complaint and impose“significant monetary sanctions” upon Plaintiffs andtheir counsel for alleged frivolous and abusive conductin the filing and prosecution of their claims.Following oral argument conducted virtually on May29, 2025, this Court issued an order, which in pertinentpart stated the following:The motion by Plaintiffs seeking leave to amend thecomplaint (Motion Seq. No. 6) is GRANTED to thefollowing extent:(1) Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend thecomplaint in the proposed form annexed to themoving papers.(2) A copy of this order with notice of entry shall beserved upon all parties within ten days after entry ofthe order.(3) Said amended complaint shall be deemed servedupon service of this order with notice of entrythereof.(4) Within 30 days after service of the amendedcomplaint, Defendants shall serve an answer to it orotherwise respond thereto.The motion by Defendant Barry Itzkowitz seekingan extension of time to respond to the complaint
Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc., Slip Copy (2025)86 Misc.3d 1236(A), 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 51113(U) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2and for additional time for Defendant Formula 3Brooklyn Inc. to retain an attorney (Motion Seq. No.3) is DENIED.The motion by Defendants Barry Itzkowitzand Boris Itzkowitz seeking various forms ofrelief, including dismissing the complaint, denyingPlaintiffs[’] motion for leave to amend thecomplaint, striking Plaintiff Lesly Pierre's claims,striking Plaintiffs Reginald Prince and Paul AndreDalus’ claims, and imposing sanctions on Plaintiffsand their counsel, and for a CPLR 3103 protectiveorder (Motion Seq. No. 7) is DENIED.Additionally, Defendants are ORDERED to complywith IAS Part 2 Rules[,] Part [II], Subpart B, § 15,concerning use of artificial intelligence programswith respect to any future papers submitted to theCourt (see copy below).*2 With respect to the papers submitted byDefendants in connection with Motion SequenceNos. 3, 6, and 7, determined herein, DefendantsBARRY ITZKOWITZ and BORIS ITZKOWITZshall comply with it by June 13, 2025. Subsequent toJune 13, 2025, Plaintiffs are granted leave to makeany motion with respect thereto.§ 15. Artificial intelligence (AI) programs. Allsubmissions with respect to a motion mustinclude a certification by an attorney eitherthat no generative artificial intelligence programwas used in the drafting of any affidavit,affirmation, or memorandum of law containedwithin the submission, or that a generative artificialintelligence program was used but all generated text,including citations, quotations. and legal analysiswas reviewed for accuracy and approved by anattorney (or the self-represented party). If thecertification states a generative artificial intelligenceprogram was used, the program must be identifiedand the documents which include matter generatedby the program must be specified along with whichparts of the documents were drafted by the program.One certification pertaining to a party's submissioncomprised of several such documents shall suffice.All parties are encouraged to read IAS Part 2's Rulescompletely.As of the writing of this supplemental decision andorder, Defendants Barry Itzkowitz and Boris Itzkowitzhave failed to comply with that portion of the May 29,2025 order which required them to comply with IASPart 2 Rules[,] Part II, Subpart B, § 15, concerning useof artificial intelligence programs in the papers theysubmitted in connection with Motion Sequence Nos. 3,6, and 7.DiscussionGenerative artificial intelligence (AI) has yieldedexpansive technological breakthroughs for society atlarge, while simultaneously presenting novel issues offirst impression within the judicial system. In 2023,the Southern District of New York addressed somepertinent harms stemming from improper usage ofartificial intelligence in Mata v Avianca, Inc. (678 FSupp 3d 443 [SD NY 2023]). The Court summarized:The opposing party wastes time and money inexposing the deception. The Court's time is takenfrom other important endeavors. The client may bedeprived of arguments based on authentic judicialprecedents. There is potential harm to the reputationof judges and courts whose names are falselyinvoked as authors of the bogus opinions and tothe reputation of a party attributed with fictionalconduct. It promotes cynicism about the legalprofession and the American judicial system. Anda future litigant may be tempted to defy a judicialruling by disingenuously claiming doubt about itsauthenticity. (Id. at 448-449.)Since Mata, the American Bar Association hasreleased guidance on AI use, and the technology hasbeen a featured topic at legal conferences.1 Courts,such IAS Part 2, have adapted their rules to addressAI programs. For example, this Court requires acertification of compliance stating that a generativeartificial intelligence program was used, as quotedabove in the May 29, 2025 order.2 As the Mata Courtstated, “Technological advances are commonplace andthere is nothing inherently improper about using areliable artificial intelligence tool for assistance. Butexisting rules impose a gatekeeping role on attorneysto ensure the accuracy of their filings.” (Mata, 678 FSupp 3d at 448).
Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc., Slip Copy (2025)86 Misc.3d 1236(A), 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 51113(U) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3*3 Nonetheless, fake citations (“hallucinations”)and improper usage of AI continue to plague thecourts. In Rochon-Eidsvig v JGB Collateral, LLC (No.05-24-00123-CV, *2-5 [June 12, 2025]), the Courtof Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas recentlyimposed sanctions on an attorney who citing non-existent cases, resulting from the use of AI to preparea legal brief:Appellants’ May 16, 2024 Brief cited four cases thatcould not be located by Appellee or this Court....On April 20, 2025, Appellants filed a reportconceding those identified cases could not belocated and offering Appellants’ counsel's regretsand acceptance of full responsibility for the error, aswell as Appellants’ assurances they were preparedto take whatever further action this Court deemsnecessary to correct the errors made in their May16, 2024 Brief. Appellants identified appellant HeidiR. Hafer, an attorney licensed in this State, as thecounsel who drafted that brief.On April 24, 2025, we ordered Appellants’ counselHeidi R. Hafer to appear before this Court onMay 8, 2025, to discuss Appellants’ drafting ofits opening brief. At that May 8, 2025 hearing,Appellants’ counsel Heidi R. Hafer appeared withretained counsel, former Justice John G. Browning....Regardless of whatever resources are used toprepare a party's brief, every attorney has an ongoingresponsibility to review and ensure the accuracyof filings with this and other courts. This includeschecking that all case law cited in a brief actuallyexists and supports the points being made. It isnever acceptable to rely on software or technology—no matter how advanced—without reviewing andverifying the information. The use of AI or othertechnology does not excuse carelessness or failureto follow professional standards.Technology can be helpful, but it cannotreplace a lawyer's judgment, research, or ethicalresponsibilities. The practice of law changes withthe use of new technology, but the core duties ofcompetence and candor remain the same. Lawyersmust adapt to new tools without lowering theirstandards.Having considered the foregoing as well asAppellants’ amended brief, we ORDER Appellants’counsel Heidi R. Hafer to complete and fileproof of her completion of THREE (3) HOURSof Texas continuing legal education courseson ethics and FIVE (5) HOURS of Texascontinuing legal education courses on technology.She may satisfy TWO (2) HOURS of our orderedtechnology requirement by filing proof of hercompletion of the “two hours of Texas continuinglegal education courses on the ethical use anddimensions of generative A.I.” she averred shehad already completed in her May 19, 2025Response to Appellee's Notice of Filing Attorney'sFees and Business Records Affidavit. We ORDERAppellants’ counsel Heidi R. Hafer to file proofof completion of the ordered hours on or beforeTHIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this Court'sorder.We FURTHER ORDER Appellants’ counsel HeidiR. Hafer to pay $2,500 in attorney's fees toAppellee's counsel as a sanction for her misconductbefore this Court. See Utz v. McKenzie, 397S.W.3d 273, 281 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.)(acknowledging this Court's inherent authority tosanction attorneys who engage in misconduct beforeour Court). We ORDER Appellants’ counsel HeidiR. Hafer to file proof of payment on or beforeTHIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this Court'sorder.*4 Kings County Supreme Court also recentlywarned a defendant's counselor, who cited inopposition fake case law generated by AI, witheconomic sanctions if this were to occur again (seeFrancois v Medina, 2025 WL 978860 [Sup Ct,Kings County 2025]). Last year the Surrogate's Courtaddressed allegations of AI use where it was evidentthat five of six cases cited in a reply brief wereeither erroneous or nonexistent (see Matter of Samuel,82 Misc 3d 616 [Sur Ct, Kings County 2024]). TheSamuel Court stated, “Although the court is dubiousabout using AI to prepare legal documents, it is notnecessarily the use of AI in and of itself that causessuch offense and concern, but rather the attorney'sfailure to review the sources produced by AI without
Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc., Slip Copy (2025)86 Misc.3d 1236(A), 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 51113(U) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4proper examination and scrutiny,” noting that theattorney took no steps to ensure the information andcitations were legitimate and factual while affirmingsuch to the court (id. at 620). The Samuel Courtheld counsel's conduct to be frivolous pursuant to22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) because his reply assertedmaterial factual statements regarding case law andcourt holdings that were false (id. at 621). The SamuelCourt further held it within the court's discretionpursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (a) to schedulean appearance to address whether an imposition ofsanctions was warranted (id. at 622).Though all aforementioned cases discuss the perilsof improper attorney use of AI, the case before usspecifically concerns pro se defendants. The OhioSouthern District Federal Court encountered a similarsituation with a pro se litigant who admittedly usedAI to prepare his case filings and submitted a 144-page complaint (see Whaley v Experian Info. Solutions,Inc., 2023 WL 5899845 [SD OH]). The WhaleyCourt responded by dismissing the pro se litigant'scomplaint on the basis it was “verbose, confused, andredundant” (id. at 2). The Court deemed the complaintambiguous and potentially frivolous or malicious,making it difficult for the opposing counsel to file aresponsive pleading and for the court to conduct anorderly litigation (see id.). In chastising the plaintiff,the Court wrote:Plaintiff admits that he used Artificial Intelligence(“AI”) to prepare case filings. See Doc. No. 25at PageID 536—37. The Court reminds all partiesthat they are not allowed to use AI—for anypurpose—to prepare any filings in the instant caseor any case before the undersigned. See JudgeNewman's Civil Standing Order at VI. Both parties,and their respective counsel, have an obligationto immediately inform the Court if they discoverthat a party has used AI to prepare any filing. Id.The penalty for violating this provision includes,inter alia, striking the pleading from the record, theimposition of economic sanctions or contempt, anddismissal of the lawsuit. Id. (Whaley v ExperianInfo. Solutions, Inc., 2023 WL 5899845, *1 n 2.)Here, the pro se Defendants, aided by AI, have filednumerous motions, one notably illogical. This hasrequired both the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel toexpend valuable time and energy to read Defendants’papers, confirm whether the AI system's case lawis accurate, and respond. Defendants’ use of AI toproduce numerous motions containing nonsensical andincorrect statements is illustrative of how improper AIuse impedes the legal system, a situation mirroringwhat transpired in Whaley.Upon fact-checking one of Defendants’ memorandaof law (in support of Defendants’ seventh motion— the most extensive), at least five AI inaccuraciesor “hallucinations”3 were found (NYSCEF Doc No.52). This underscores the significance of compliancewith the Court's rules regarding AI which have beenpromulgated to prevent this very situation: vast misuseof the Court's time as well as opposing counsel's,and hindrance of efficient judicial processes. It is ofthe utmost importance in preserving the integrity andfunctioning of the legal system that attorneys as wellas pro se litigants not improperly use AI and complyby affirming the accuracy of the information providedto the Court.*5 Within Defendants’ above-mentionedmemorandum of law, under Point I, Defendants cite“Graziano v. County of Nassau, 202 AD3d 707,708 (2d Dep't 2022).” (NYSCEF Doc No. 52 at 2).“Graziano” allegedly supports the proposition that“Discovery cannot resuscitate claims demolished bythis conclusive evidence” (id.). However, upon reviewof the citation “202 AD3d 707, 708,” it references not“Graziano,” but the criminal case of People v Devore.As these parties are engaged in civil litigation the use ofcriminal case law itself is nonsensical. Further, Devoredoes not stand for any holding regarding discoveryand is instead a Second Department affirmation ofa conviction of varying degrees of burglary androbbery (see People v Devore, 202 AD3d 707 [2dDept 2022]). No case by the name of “Grazianov. County of Nassau” appears to exist. Defendantcites the nonexistent “Graziano” once again in PointIII, Section F of their argument in support of pre-discovery dismissal (see NYSCEF Doc No. 52 at 4).Additionally, Defendants’ Exhibit M, which containscase law printouts, states a contradictory holdingfor Graziano beyond what was established in theirmemorandum of law (see NYSCEF Doc No. 66 at 3).Further in Defendants’ memorandum of law, PointIII, Section E cites “Bellefonte Re Ins. Co., 757
Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc., Slip Copy (2025)86 Misc.3d 1236(A), 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 51113(U) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5F.2d 523,” another improper citation (NYSCEF DocNo. 52 at 4). Defendants cite Bellefonte to supporttheir argument that since Plaintiffs’ perceive Formula3's manager Rahman as controlling the car washoperation, Defendants’ liability as Plaintiffs’ employeris undermined. However, Bellefonte actually held thata district court ruling granting summary judgment onbehalf of a defendant for a lack of alleged fraudulentinducement was proper (see Bellefonte Re Ins. Co. vArgonaut Ins. Co., 757 F2d 523 [2d Cir 1985]).Then, under Point IV, Section A, “Utter Futility,”Defendants cite two cases which purportedly representholdings referring to time-barred claims (see NYSCEFDoc No. 52 at 4). One of the cases, Y.A. v ConairCorp., 154 AD3d 611 [1st Dept 2017], has no mentionof time-barred claims, relevant or otherwise, and isinstead a First Department case affirming the denial ofa defendant's CPLR 3025 (b) motion to amend theiranswer due to insufficiency to state a cognizable claim.The other case is merely referred to as “Perez,” andwith no other identifying citation supplemented, it isimpossible for the Court to locate the case, if a real casewas even intended.Finally, Defendants cite, “Cole, 93 NY2d at 40,”in support of Plaintiffs’ alleged “demonstrable badfaith” in requesting leave to amend their complaint(NYSCEF Doc No. 52 at 5). Cole v Mandell (93 NY2d34 [1999]) is a real case from the Court of Appeals.However, Cole stands for the requirement of a plaintiffto properly satisfy one's pleading burden in order toclaim an exemption set forth in CPLR § 1602.4 Cole isnot applicable here as the case at bar does not involvea personal injury action regarding liability of jointtortfeasors. While Defendants’ AI system did cite fromCole factually correct law regarding the elementaryand primary functions of a pleading to apprise anadverse party of the pleader's claim, the Court doesnot find it persuasive in this instance when taken incontext (see Cole, 93 NY2d at 40). Defendants lookto support a claim of prejudice based on an allegedinability to prepare a defense to Plaintiffs’ allegationsdue to Plaintiffs’ insufficient pleadings. However,Plaintiffs simply seek to amend their complaint toinclude an additional claim on behalf of an additionalplaintiff whose name was previously pleaded. Thisclaim is analogous to the earlier alleged failures ofDefendants to perform requisite duties under the LaborLaw to pay minimum wage. The Second Departmenthas found a lack of prejudice or surprise “wherethe proposed amendments were premised upon thesame facts, transactions or occurrences alleged in theoriginal complaint” (Janssen v Inc. Vil. of RockvilleCtr., 59 AD3d 15, 27 [2d Dept 2008]; see alsoFlowers v Mombrun, 212 AD3d 713, 715 [2d Dept2023] [finding no surprise or prejudice where proposedamendments added details about the communicationsbetween the parties regarding the plaintiff's claims,as they were premised on same facts, transactionsor occurrences alleged in the original complaint and“merely elaborated on the same theory of liabilityalleged in the original complaint”]). Thus, Defendantshave been placed adequately on notice and willexperience no prejudice or surprise by an amendmentadding the corresponding claim.*6 For the sake of brevity the Court will notenumerate each and every phony or incorrect citationincluded by Defendants in their various submittedpapers.The Court does recognize that pro se litigants mightnot be familiar with legal procedures and that a certainlatitude may be afforded to them (see Brown v Lavine,45 AD2d 753 [2d Dept 1974] [new administrativehearing afforded pro se individual who erroneouslythought pre-hearing off-the-record defense presentedto hearing officer was on the record]); Haverlin vGottlieb, 49 Misc 3d 131[A], 2015 NY Slip Op51750[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Dists. 2015] [motionprovidently construed as one to renew]; Bank TrustNatl. Assn. v Dubrowski, 2024 WL 3312482 [SupCt, NY County 2024] [court will examine claimunder uncited provision as well as cited one]; Matterof J.E.P. v People, 9 Misc 3d 1104[A], 2005 NYSlip Op 51397[U] [Fam Ct, Nassau County 2005][incorrect caption and minor technical deficiencies inpapers excused]). Even so, “A self-represented litigantacquires no greater rights than any other litigant (seeDuffen v. State, 245 AD2d 653, 665 N.Y.S.2d 978;Brooks v. Inn at Saratoga Assn., 188 AD2d 921,591 N.Y.S.2d 625)” (Greenfield v Gluck, 2003 WL1961333 [App Term 2d & 11th Dists 2003] [untimelysummary judgment motion]).Here, Defendants’ use of AI frustrates the litigationand is not in compliance with this Court's IAS Part
Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc., Slip Copy (2025)86 Misc.3d 1236(A), 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 51113(U) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.62 rules regarding artificial intelligence use. IAS Part2 rules are well supported by persuasive case lawregarding appropriate and proper use of artificialintelligence and are to be complied with by both theattorneys before this Court as well as pro se litigants.Additionally, Defendants’ motion denoted as MotionSequence No. 7 also fails to meet the standards ofCPLR § 2214 (a) and therefore must result in denialdespite the motion being made by a pro se litigant(see Abizadeh v Abizadeh, 159 AD3d 856 [2d Dept2018]; Renaud v Renaud, 79 Misc 3d 1237 [A], 2023NY Slip Op 50824 [U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023]).Ultimately, a pro se defendant's lack of understandingabout the legal process does not, by itself, constitute areasonable excuse (see OneWest Bank, N.A. v Jacobs,234 AD3d 983, 985 [2d Dept 2025]).ConclusionIn response to this issue of first impression upon theCourt implicating a pro se litigant's noncompliancewith IAS Part 2 Rules, Part 2, Subpart B, § 15 onArtificial Intelligence, the Court will be amendingits rules to make it even more explicitly clear thatcompliance by pro se litigants in addition to attorneysis absolutely mandatory.At the hearing held on May 29, 2025, Plaintiffs’ motionseeking leave to amend the complaint (Motion Seq.No. 6) was GRANTED. Defendant Barry Itzkowitz'smotion seeking an extension of time to respond tothe complaint and for additional time for DefendantFormula 3 Brooklyn Inc. to retain an attorney (MotionSeq. No. 3) was DENIED, as it was rendered academicin light of the thirty-day additional time window uponservice of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. Additionally,the motion by Defendants Barry Itzkowitz and BorisItzkowitz seeking various forms of relief, includingdismissing the complaint, denying Plaintiffs’ motionfor leave to amend the complaint, striking PlaintiffLesly Pierre's claims, striking Plaintiffs ReginaldPrince and Paul Andre Dalus’ claims, imposingsanctions on Plaintiffs and their counsel, and for aCPLR § 3103 protective order (Motion Seq. No. 7) wasDENIED.*7 Further, Defendants were ORDERED to complywith IAS Part 2 Rules, Part 2, Subpart B, § 15,concerning the use of artificial intelligence programswith respect to any future papers submitted to theCourt.Defendants Barry Itzkowitz and Boris Itzkowitz wereORDERED as well to retroactively comply by June13, 2025 with said Rules provision insofar as MotionSequence Nos. 3, 6, and 7 were concerned. AsDefendants Barry Itzkowitz and Boris Itzkowitz havefailed to comply with that branch of this Court's order— to comply with this Court's AI rules respect tothe papers submitted by Defendants in connectionwith Motion Sequence Nos. 3, 6, and 7 — by theJune 13, 2025 deadline, the Court, pursuant to 22NYCRR 130-1.1 (a), will now be exercising itsauthority by conducting a hearing to address whetheran imposition of financial sanctions is warrantedfor noncompliance. The PARTIES, INCLUDINGDEFENDANTS BARRY ITZKOWITZ AND BORISITZKOWITZ, ARE HEREBY ORDERED TOATTEND SUCH HEARING, to be conductedvirtually through Microsoft Teams on Monday, July28, 2025, at 3:00 p.m.The Court will be sending the parties the link to jointhe hearing in a notice.All CitationsSlip Copy, 86 Misc.3d 1236(A), 2025 WL 2006010(Table), 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 51113(U)Footnotes*This Court acknowledges the assistance of Christine O'Reilly Mann, judicial intern and second year studentat Cardozo School of Law, in the preparation of this decision.1“An onslaught of AI-generated hallucinations in court filings shows lawyers haven't yet learned how to finessetheir use of the rapidly changing technology, as the financial and reputational risks of citing fake casesis expected to climb” (Evan Ochsner, AI Fake Citations Expose Lawyer Sloppiness and Training Gaps,Bloomberg Law, available at https://news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-ops-and-tech/ai-fake-citations-expose-
Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc., Slip Copy (2025)86 Misc.3d 1236(A), 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 51113(U) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.7lawyer-sloppiness-and-training-gaps [last accessed July 14, 2025]). The ABA Learning Center contains acourse entitled “AI & Ethics Unleashed: Navigating the Use of Generative AI in Your Legal Practice” (seehttps://learningcenter.americanbar.org/courses/90617). The New York State Unified Court System recentlyfeatured a discourse on the use of generative AI in preparing legal papers at its recent annual conferencefor judges.2IAS Part 2 Rules appear at https://ww2.nycourts.gov/courts/2jd/kings/civil/MaslowRules.shtml.3For more information explaining hallucinations and how AI can go wrong see Cade Metz, What Makes A.I.Chatbots Go Wrong?, NY Times, Mar. 29, 2023, available at www.nytimes.com/2023/03/29/technology/ai-chatbots-hallucinations.html (last accessed July 15, 2025).4CPLR § 1602 sets forth limitations on liability for claims of contribution or indemnification in a personal injuryaction.End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access