Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C. (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Suffolk County v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
New York (NY)
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Decided
2026
Michele Cassata, Ross Cassata, Plaintiffs, v. Michael..., --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26014 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 263521Supreme Court, Suffolk County, New York.Michele Cassata, Ross Cassata, Plaintiffs,v.Michael Macrina Architect, P.C., Defendant.Index No. 617183/2025|Decided on January 27, 2026Attorneys and Law FirmsRuskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C.Attorneys for PlaintiffsBY: Adam H. Russ, Esq.Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLPAttorneys for DefendantBY: Thomas M. Fleming, Esq.Salenger Sack Kinnel & Bavaro, LLPAttorneys for Maria-Eleni Kiousenterlis, Esq.BY: Edward J. Nitkewicz, Esq.OpinionLinda Kevins, J.*1 A sanctions hearing was held before this Court onDecember 22, 2025 pursuant to a sua sponte December 9,2025 show cause order. Such order directed the defendant'scounsel Maria-Eleni Kiousenterlis, Esq. ("Kiousenterlis"),the Law office of Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden,LLP ("MMPS"), by its managing attorney/partner and/or supervising attorney for Kiousenterlis and, plaintiff'sattorneys, Adam H. Russ, Esq. and Rachel A. Morgenstern,Esq, to show cause on December 22, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.,before this Court, why Kiousenterlis' and MMPS should notbe sanctioned for alleged frivolous and unethical conduct, inviolation of 22 NYCRR §§ 130-1.l., 1.2; and the Rules ofProfessional Conduct, 22 NYCRR §§ 1200 at Rules 1.1 (a),1.3, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 8.3 and 8.4, for their conduct insubmitting motion papers to this Court, which are allegedto: (1) contain inaccurate or non-existent caselaw citationsand/or quotations; (2) cite caselaw that does not support theproposition advanced by defendant; (3) plagiarize legal briefsby a third-party and/or fail to properly credit and/or cite toportions of defendant's legal submissions that were authoredby a third-party.On December 22, 2025, defendant's counsel Maria-EleniKiousenterlis, Esq. ("Kiousenterlis") appeared before thisCourt with counsel Edward J. Nitkewicz; The Law Officeof Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP appeared byThomas M. Fleming II, Esq. ("Fleming"), its supervisingattorney for Kiousenterlis; Plaintiff's counsel Adam H. Russappeared; Plaintiff's attorney Rachel A. Morgenstern did notappear as Mr. Russ advised she was ill. During the course ofthe proceedings, the Court had the opportunity to determineissues of credibility by reviewing the record, observing thewitnesses and the evidence presented. Houston v Koszer, 178AD3d 781 [2d Dept. 2019].Upon the admissible and credible evidence, the Court makesthe following findings and issues sanctions as stated herein.I. PROCEDURAL HISTORYPlaintiff commenced the within action seeking damagesagainst defendant resulting from an alleged house collapseat premises known as 945 Dune Road, Westhampton Dunes,Town of Southampton, County of Suffolk, State of NewYork. Plaintiff alleges that defendant provided a proposaldated January 16, 2021, "for an architectural redesign of theHouse, including an addition that would enclose existing deckspace" (New York State Court Electronic Filing [NYSCEF]P Compl NYSCEF 2, at 2). The plaintiff allegedly acceptedthe defendant's proposal and construction began sometimethereafter. In her complaint, plaintiff alleges that on January24, 2023, "when the framing of the House was near complete,the House collapsed . . . [t]o be clear, the entirety of the woodframing of the House collapsed." (Id.) Following the collapse,the defendant allegedly assisted the plaintiff in redesigningthe house so it would be structurally sound. Plaintiff allegestwo causes of action, negligence/professional malpractice andbreach of contract. Plaintiff argues that defendant breachedits duty based on defendant's alleged poor initial designand that defendant did not adhere to industry standardsduring its initial design, both of which resulted in the housecollapse. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in an amount tobe determined at trial.*2 On July 25, 2025, defendant interposed a verified answerasserting thirty-six (36) affirmative defenses (D AnswerNYSCEF 4).
Michele Cassata, Ross Cassata, Plaintiffs, v. Michael..., --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26014 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2By notice of motion filed October 22, 2025, plaintiff movedto strike all of defendant's affirmative defenses or, in thealternative, to strike thirty-two (32) of defendant's thirty-six(36) affirmative defenses (P Not. of Mot. NYSCEF 8).Defendant opposed such application by written oppositionfiled on November 17, 2025 (D Aff Opp NYSCEF 17, D Memof Law NYSCEF 22).Thereafter, plaintiff filed both a reply to defendant'sopposition and letters to the Court (P Aff Supp NYSCEF 25,P Nov 24, 2025 Letter NYSCEF 31, P Noc 26, 2025 LetterNYSCEF 33) alleging that "[d]efendant's counsel appearsto have opposed [p]laintiff's motion seeking to strike herpalpably insufficient and boilerplate affirmative defensesby plagiarizing a brief that was generated by artificialintelligence ('AI'). In doing so, counsel makes a mockery ofthis Court" (P Mem Law NYSCEF 30, at 1). Additionally,the plaintiff claimed that the defendant's counsel "plagiarizednearly the entirety of a brief submitted by Rachel LeeDreher of Dreher Law Group PLLC, in an unrelated case.In that unrelated case, Judge Lyle E. Frank issued a decisionexpressly condemning Ms. Dreher's use of 'non-existentcases' " (NYSCEF 31, at 1-2), "See, For A Financial AssetSecuritization 2021, LLC v Teona Ostrov Public Relations,LLC, No. 155475/2024, 2025 WL 334218, at *1 [Sup Ct NYCounty, Jan 24, 2025]" (Id, at 1, Fn 1).By letter to the Court dated November 25, 2025, Kiousenterlisresponded to plaintiff's accusations of plagiarism and misuseof AI, by stating that "[t]he undersigned sincerely apologizesto the Court for certain sourcing (which Plaintiff's refersto as 'plagiarized') and citation inaccuracies in my originalsubmission" (D Letter Nov 25, 2025 NYSCEF 32, at1). Kiousenterlis requested to either withdraw the originalopposition and permit another attorney in her firm to submitnew papers (a "redo") or, in the alternative, to permit her towithdraw "all references to the alleged improperly cited caselaw" (Id.). In Kiousenterlis' letter to the Court, although notgranted permission to file a sur-reply and in violation of Part29 Court Rules, Kiousenterlis also inappropriately advancedpositions in further support of her opposition to plaintiff'smotion.On November 26, 2025, by letter filed with the Court,although plaintiff vehemently opposed any course ofcorrective conduct on behalf of defendant, in an apparenteffort to move forward, plaintiff "proposed a redline strikingthrough the language, which [d]efendant has already agreedto strike in her letter, as well as the improper new substantivearguments" (NYSCEF 33, at 2); also the plaintiff reserved allrights and remedies, including a request for sanctions againstthe defendant.Finally, on December 17, 2025, Fleming, MMPS'ssupervising attorney for Kiousenterlis, filed an Affirmationin Response to Court's Show Cause Order (D Aff Resp toOTSC NYSCEF 38) wherein he states that Kiousenterlisis no longer associated with MMPS and that he had noindication from his level of review that Kiousenterlis' workwas plagiarized or improperly relied upon by ArtificialIntelligence. Additionally, Fleming states that to the extentthat AI usage is alleged, Kiousenterlis was in direct violationof the MMPS employee handbook provisions regarding theuse of AI. Further, he states that "MMPS has conductedadditional firmwide training on the importance of complyingwith our handbook provisions regarding the use of AI" (Id.,at 3 Para. 9) and he includes those provisions of the handbookas an exhibit (D Ex A NYSCEF 39).*3 II. SANCTIONS HEARINGAt the outset, the Court expanded the hearing to includeallegations of frivolous and unethical conduct in violationof the NY Rules of Professional Conduct (NY Comp.Codes R&Regs.), 22 NYCRR Part 1200.0, Rule 3.1, andprovided the parties an opportunity to review that rule priorto going forward. Additionally, the Court provided the partieswith the format for the proceeding and provided for eachallegation to be specifically raised with an opportunity foreach defendant subject to sanctions to respond with a fullopportunity to be heard. Additionally, plaintiff's counselsubmitted an "Affirmation in Support of Award of AttorneyFees" for related legal services rendered in connection with"the hallucinated case law and misattributions submitted byDefendant in its Opposition" (P Aff Atty Fees NYSCEF 41,P Ex A NYSCEF 42).Six specific allegations1regarding Kiousenterlis' allegedfrivolous conduct are detailed in plaintiff's ReplyMemorandum of Law (NYSCEF 30), Affirmation in FurtherSupport (NYSCEF 25) and by plaintiff at the hearing.Plaintiff claims that two cases cited by Kiousenterlis in heropposition do not exist:
Michele Cassata, Ross Cassata, Plaintiffs, v. Michael..., --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26014 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.31. Harris v Seward Park Housing Corp., 147 AD3d 589 (1stDep't 2017) and2. DiLorenzo v D.C. & D. Transp. Corp., 39 AD2d 950 (2ndDept, 1972).Additionally, plaintiff alleges that a quotation cited inKiousenterlis' opposition does not exist:3. A quotation attributed to Harris v Seward Park HousingCorp., 147 AD3d 589 (1st Dep't 2017) does not exist exceptthat it is found in only two places - defendant's oppositionbrief and the brief from which she allegedly plagiarized.Further, plaintiff claims that Kiousenterlis cites two cases forspecific propositions for which they do not stand and do notsupport:4. New York Univ. v Cont'l Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 323 (1995)and5. Becker v Elm Air Conditioning Corp., 143 AD2d 965, 966(2nd Dep't 1988).Finally, plaintiff alleges that Kiousenterlis "plagiarized"entire portions of someone else's brief in an unrelated case(P Ex B NYSCEF 27), without citing to it and withoutverifying its content and that the Court for which such briefwas submitted issued a decision expressly condemning theauthor's use of non-existent cases (P Ex C NYSCEF 28):6. For a Financial Asset Securitization 2021, LLC v Teona,2025 WL 334218 (2025)During the hearing, both Kiousenterlis and Fleming appearedsincerely sorry and conceded to the truth of the abovesix allegations. However, Kiousenterlis denied she usedAI (otherwise known as Artificial Intelligence, GenerativeArtificial Intelligence, or GenAI) in her research and statedthat she found a brief on Westlaw which she incorporated intoher opposition without verifying the citations, quotations, andpropositions of law. Although that may be plausible, the Courtis not convinced Kiousenterlis did not use AI in her researchthat located the brief. It is incredible that an attorney would"copy and paste" from someone else's brief without verifyingtheir sources, citations, quotations, propositions of law, andreading the ultimate court decision upon which the briefwas submitted, and ultimately reviewed and considered. It isactually more likely and maybe even slightly less offensive—but also sanctionable—that an attorney who relied onArtificial Intelligence to conduct research obtained a veryconvincing and well-written legal argument, and therefore didnot take the time to verify the same.*4 In finding it unpersuasive that Kiousenterlis did notuse Artificial Intelligence to conduct her research, the Courtalso considered two statements by Kiousenterlis' supervisingattorney, Fleming. After learning of the allegations andafter the Court scheduled a sanctions hearing regardingsame, and presumambly after his investigation of theseserious allegations, Fleming stated in his December 17, 2025Affirmation in Response to Court's Show Cause Order that,to the extent that AI usage is alleged, Kiousenterlis was indirect violation of the MMPS employee handbook provisionsregarding the use of AI. Although when questioned at thehearing, Fleming denied direct knowledge that Kiousenterlisused AI, he asserted that he thinks his firm recently obtainedthe Artificial Intelligence version of Westlaw a couple ofmonths ago - which was during the relevant time period thatthe plaintiff's motion, defendant's opposition, and plaintiff'sreply were filed. Fleming also stated that he does not use it ashe does not "really know how to use any AI stuff." (December22, 2025 Sanctions Hrg Tr 63:10-11). Further, as pointed outin plaintiff's Reply Memorandum of Law, "[i]t is quite literallyhard to imagine an Opposition that is less tailored to thisparticular action," (NYSCEF 30, at 2) which is an indicationof the use of Artificial Intelligence.Further, Kiousenterlis stated she "learned of these cases withthe use of AI when it was brought to our attention by plaintiff'scounsel." (Tr 46:18-21). However, when the Court questionedher further about the " 'use of AI,' what use of AI are youtalking about" (Id. 46:2-23), Kiousenterlis said "[t]hroughWestlaw, the brief that I was utilizing on Westlaw and, inturn, that brief contained AI-generated case, those cases I amreferring to." (Id. 46:24-25, 47:1-3) Kiousenterlis also statedthat she was sure they were AI generated cases. (Id. at 47)Interestingly, the January 24, 2025 Decision rendered by theCourt in For a Financial Asset Securitization 2021, LLC,does not mention AI or Artificial Intelligence anywhere in itsdecision or the footnote. The Court speaks of "non-existentcases and a quotation that did not appear in any cases cited"For a Financial Asset Securitization 2021, LLC, 2025 WL334218, footnote 1.With respect to whether or not Kiousenterlis used AI inher research, it is also noteworthy that when provided afinal opportunity to make any further statements for therecord, every attorney directed most of their comments to thechallenging issue of Artificial Intelligence.
Michele Cassata, Ross Cassata, Plaintiffs, v. Michael..., --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26014 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4In any case, whether Kiousenterlis used AI to conduct herresearch or not, citing non-existent cases, quotations, andspecific propositions of law for which they do not stand and/ordo not support, is unethical and sanctionable conduct. "Citingnonexistent case law or misrepresenting the holdings of a caseis making a false statement to a court. It does not matter if[generative AI] told you so." United States v Hayes, 763 F.Supp. 3d 1054, 1067, [D.C.E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2025] citingMaura R. Grossman, Paul W. Grimm, & Daniel G. Brown,IsDisclosure and Certification of the Use of Generative AIReally Necessary?, 107 Judicature 68, 75 (2023).To date, there is a substantial body of case law fromboth federal and state courts addressing the frivolous,unethical and sanctionable conduct of Artificial Intelligence"hallucinations," which consist of nonexistent decisions,nonexistent quotations, and propositions of law that arenot supported by cases cited. In what appears to bethe first widely-published court decision to address thesehallucinations, the Court in Mata v Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp.3d 443 [S.D.NY June 22, 2023] advised:Many harms flow from the submission of fake opinions.Theopposing party wastes time and money in exposing thedeception. The Court's time is taken from other importantendeavors. The client may be deprived of arguments basedon authentic judicial precedents. There is potential harm tothe reputation of judges and courts whose names are falselyinvoked as authors of the bogus opinions and to the reputationof a party attributed with fictional conduct. It promotescynicism about the legal profession and the American judicialsystem. And a future litigant may be tempted to defy ajudicial ruling by disingenuously claiming doubt about itsauthenticity. Id. at 448-449.*5 More recently, in the New York State Court case of Aderv Ader, 2025 WL 2831332 [Sup Ct NY County Oct. 1, 2025]the Supreme Court stated that:Use of AI is not the problem per se. The problem arises whenattorneys abdicate their responsibility to ensure their factualand legal representations to the Court—even if originallysourced from AI—are accurate. "The court relies on attorneysto do their jobs: advocate for their clients using law and facts—real law and real facts" (Enterprise v Shvo, NYSCEF 154in Index No. 653221/2024 [Sup Ct, NY County, Dec. 24,2024] [Masley, J.]). When attorneys fail to check their work—whether AI generated or not--they prejudice their clientsand do a disservice to the Court and the profession. Id. at *3.The recently published inaugural annual report, the NewYork State Unified Court System Advisory Committee onArtificial Intelligence and the Courts Annual Report to theChief Judge and Chief Aministrative Judge of the Stateof New York, December 2025, is a thorough record offindings, recommendations, and policy proposals based uponextensive research and collaboration among stakeholders,and comprised of six specialized subcommittees. Thiscomprehensive model report is the result of the efforts ofthe Committee and the foresight of New York State ChiefJudge Rowan D. Wilson and Chief Administrative JudgeJoseph A. Zayas who established the Advisory Committee onArtificial Intelligence and the Courts to conduct such inquiryand investigation. The report addresses the issue of fabricatedcitations and information in court filings and concludes thatthe existing rules are sufficient because "by signing a paperand submitting it to [ ] court, an attorney or party certifies thatthe paper does not contain any false material factual statementor any frivolous legal argument (see 22 NYCRR §§ 130-1.1,130-1.1a) and an attorney who submits any paper to [ ] court isadditionally bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct." Inthis instant matter, just as the Court in Grymes DevelopmentCompany v. Fodera, 2025 WL 3222950 [Sup Ct RichmondCounty Nov. 10, 2025], pointed out "[h]ere, there was noreasonable inquiry; had a reasonable inquiry been undertaken,the problem would have immediately revealed itself." Id. at*3.Since the decision in Mata, presumably the bench andbar have been forewarned about the ethical violations ofsubmitting filings with nonexistent decisions, nonexistentquotations, and/or propositions of law that are not supportedby cases cited. The message is clear: to avoid sanctions,lawyers must verify all submissions through a reputableauthoritative source. However, there have been a proliferationof cases demonstrating that many attorneys fail to do so andconsequently subject themselves to sanctions. Two websiteshave documented the abundance of these cases that addressthe issue: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/.and https://www.ailawlibrarians.com/2025/08/10/coming-soon-the-interactive-genai-legal-hallucinations-tracker-sneak-peek-today/ as cited by Ralph Artigliere (ret.) andProf. William F. Hamilton, From the EDRM Blog:Reasonable or Overreach? Rethinking Sanctions for AIHallucinations in Legal Filings, footnote 3, Aug, 18,2025, edrm.net/2025/08/reasonable-or-overeach-rethinking-sanctions-for-ai-hallucinations-in-legal-filings.
Michele Cassata, Ross Cassata, Plaintiffs, v. Michael..., --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26014 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5*6 III. LAWYERS' ETHICAL DUTIESWhether in New York State court, federal court, or state courtsaround the country, the courts all provide the same conclusion,a court filing of nonexistent decisions, nonexistent quotations,and/or propositions of law that are not supported by casescited, is frivolous, unethical, and sanctionable conduct. Infederal court, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Proceduregoverns, and in New York State court, the governing authorityis 22 NYCRR §§ 130-1.1, 130-1.1a, and the NY Rules ofProfessional Conduct 22 NYCRR § Part 1200.0. "[M]oststate sanctioning authority is based on frameworks withthe same underlying principles as federal law." From theEDRM Blog: Reasonable or Overreach? . . . . footnote 5.In federal courts and state courts, court decisions decidingthese issues recognize and cite cases from both federal andstate courts. See Hall v Academy Charter School, 2025 WL2256653 [E.D.NY Aug. 7, 2025], Ader, 87 Misc 3d 1213[A],Idehen v Stoute-Phillip, 2025 WL 2178395 [N.Y .City CivCt Queens County July 29, 2025]. The following NY Rulesof Professional Conduct have been considered by this Courtbecause they are relevant to the conduct in this matter.A. Lawyer's Duty Prohibiting Misconduct, Rule 8.4Rule 8.4. Misconduct provides that: "[a] lawyer or law firmshall not: . . . (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty,fraud, deceit or misrepresentation . . . ." With respect to theissue of plagiarism, the Court is afforded some guidance fromFormal Opinion 2018-3: Ethical Implications of Plagiarismin Court Filings issued by the Committee on ProfessionalEthics [NY City B. Ass'n]. Addressing the implications ofethical violations pertaining to "use of another's writing in abrief or litigation filing," the opinion differentiates betweenacademic papers and legal briefs, as follows:Unlike academic papers (or writing samples), which purportto reflect the author's original work and analysis, legal briefsare submitted to present an argument on behalf of a client, andtheir value derives from their persuasiveness, not from theiroriginality of thought or expression. A lawyer's signature ona brief is not a representation of authorship, much less of soleauthorship, but rather a commitment to take responsibility forthe contentions in the brief and an implied representation thatthe brief is not frivolous. For these reasons, . . . copying fromother writings without attribution in a litigation filing is notper se deceptive and therefore is not a per se violation of Rule8.4(c).. . . [h]owever, . . .the filing lawyer is responsible for the briefand cannot rely on the prior author to ensure compliance withthe Rules. Rule 1.1(a) (competence), Rule 1.3 (diligence),Rule 3.1 (non-meritorious claims and contentions), and Rule3.3 (conduct before a tribunal), are implicated when alawyer files a document in court. In addition, if the lawyersubjectively intends to commit deception by omitting acitation in a litigation filing, then the lawyer may be violatingRule 8.4(c) and risks discipline under that rule as well FormalOpinion 2018-3, supra.*7 Here, although Kiousenterlis intentionally omittedcitations in her opposition, the Court is not convincedthat Kiousenterlis intended to commit deception by doingso. Therefore, the Court finds that Kiousenterlis didnot violate Rule 8.4. However, Kiousenterlis' conduct offiling an opposition paper containing nonexistent decisions,nonexistent quotations, and propositions of law that are notsupported by cases cited, and plagairism, do require ananalysis of whether such conduct violates other ethical rules.Additionally, with respect to Fleming and MMPS who arelisted as the attorneys of record in NYSCEF, the "attorney ofrecord, regardless of degree of involvement, is accountablefor the accuracy of filings submitted under his or her name."Mattox v Product Innovations Research, 2025 WL 301228 at*9 [D.C. E.D. Okla. Oct. 22, 2025].B. Lawyer's Duty to Provide Competent Representation,Rule 1.1Rule 1.1. Competence provides: "(a) A lawyer shouldprovide competent representation to a client. Competentrepresentation requires the legal knowledge, skill,thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for therepresentation." Comment [5] of such rule states under theheading "Thoroughness and Preparation, " that "[c]ompetenthandling of a particular matter includes inquiry intoand analysis of the factual and legal elements of theproblem, and use of methods and procedures meeting thestandards of competent practitioners. It also includes adequatepreparation."As the Court in Benjamin v Costco Wholesale Corporation,779 F. Supp. 3d 341 [E.D.NY April 24, 2025] explained:Clients hire attorneys to perform legal research, investigatethe merit of their claims, and provide the best argumentin support of their case to the Court. The Court cannotpermit attorneys to delegate these fundamental tenants of
Michele Cassata, Ross Cassata, Plaintiffs, v. Michael..., --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26014 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.6the attorney-client relationship to an AI platform and submitthe product to the Court without review. Lawyers in theState of New York are tasked with "provid[ing] competentrepresentation to a client." NY Rules of Professional ConductRule 1.1(a). "Competent representation requires the legalknowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonablynecessary for the representation." Id. at 349.Here, the conduct of the defendant's attorneys asdelineated herein, filing with the Court an oppositioncontaining nonexistent cases and quotations, and unsupportedpropositions of law, demonstrate that the defendant was notprovided competent representation by its attorneys. As theCourt in Benjamin, stated:These phony submissions raise serious problems. To startwith the obvious, an attorney who submits fake cases clearlyhas not read those nonexistent cases . . . these made-up casescreate unnecessary work for courts and opposing attorneysalike. And perhaps most critically, they demonstrate a failureto provide competent representation to the client. Id. at 343.Further, with respect to the conduct of plagiarism, FormalOpinion 2018-3, supra at 14, states that a lawyer may beproviding ineffective advocacy for a client because "[i]f thelawyer copies extensively and inaptly from a treatise or priorjudicial opinion, the brief may give the court little guidance onhow the law applies to the facts of the case and may leave theadversary's arguments unrebutted . . . '([C]ourts are especiallyconcerned not so much with the mere copying of someoneelse's work, but rather the act of copying in lieu of customizinga brief to the issues and circumstances of the case.' "(citationsomitted).Accordingly, the Court finds that Kiousenterlis, Fleming andMMPS violated Rule 1.1 by their frivolous and unethicalconduct of filing opposition with the Court that containednonexistent case citations and quotations, and unsupportedpropositions of law, that also were not tailored to the instantcase as well as plagiarism, all which demonstrate a failureof Kiousenterlis, Fleming and MMPS to provide competentrepresentation to their client.*8 C. Lawyer's Duty to Keep Abreast of Technology,Rule 1.1Comment [8] of Rule 1.1. states: "To maintain the requisiteknowledge and skill, a lawyer should . . . (ii) keep abreast ofthe benefits and risks associated with technology the lawyeruses to provide services to clients or to store or transmitconfidential information.""A lawyer has a duty to be competent not only today butalso tomorrow, and to be competent not only in substantivelaw and procedure but also in technology (citation omitted)"Simon's NY Rules of Prof. Conduct § 1.1:13 Acquiring andmaintaining technological competence: Rule 1.1, Comment[8]. As AI tools become more commonplace in law firms of allsizes "[t]echnological competence is especially important."Id.The Court finds incompatable the concept that a supervisingattorney can properly supervise an associate regarding theproper use of technology provided by the law firm (ArtificialIntelligence version of Westlaw), with the concept hereinconceded that the supervising attorney does not know how touse it.The N.Y.S. U.C.S. Advisory Committee Report on ArtificialIntelligence and the Courts, December 2025, at page 14,states that the AI-enhanced versions of Westlaw and Lexis"fall well short of being fully trustworthy." Althoughthese AI-enhanced versions are different from the basicversions and are constantly improving, such conclusion asdetailed in the report relied on a 2024 study by StanfordUniversity which found that "the Lexis product hallucinatedin 17% of its responses, while responding accurately65% of the time, and the Westlaw product hallucinatedin 33% of its responses, while responding accurately42% of the time" Id. at 14-15, and footnote 14, [citingVarun Magesh, Faiz Surani, Matthew Dahl, Mirac Suzgun,Christopher D. Manning, and Daniel E. Ho, Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal ResearchTools, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Vol. 22, Issue2, at 216-242 [2025], https://dho.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/Legal_RAG_Hallucinations.pdf.] Accordingly, theSubcommittee on Court Administration and Managementcautioned in its Interim Policy that, "[e]ven when usingAI-enhanced features that have been incorporated intoestablished legal research platforms, any content generated byAI should be independently verified for accuracy." Id. at page15.This Court is cognizant of the trepidation that many attorneyshave with using the latest technology - generative ArtificialIntelligence. But fear must not deter us from fulfilling ourobligations. It should not prevent us from doing what needsto be done. We all need to learn this technology. It is not atrain that is coming, it is here and speeding fast and we areon it whether we like it or not. As professionals we need
Michele Cassata, Ross Cassata, Plaintiffs, v. Michael..., --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26014 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.7to educate ourselves so that we understand how to use thistechnology correctly and make appropriate decisions whetherwe are using it, our associates or staff are using it, our clientsare using it, or we are confronted with it by an adversaryin a filed paper or potential evidence. With respect to legalresearch and drafting, the proper use of Artificial Intelligencecan be more efficient by far, but it is vital to verify when usingAI.*9 Given all of the above, the Court finds that Kiousenterlis,Fleming and MMPS violated Rule 1.1 by failing to keepabreast of technology as delineated herein.D. Lawyer's Duty to be Diligent, Rule 1.3Rule 1.3 (a) Diligence states that, "[a] lawyer shall act withreasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client,"and "[a] lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to thelawyer." Copying large sections of a brief without tailoringthe brief to the facts may violate Rule 1.3. Formal Opinion2018-3, supra at 15.The Court finds that Kiousenterlis, Fleming and MMPSviolated Rule 1.3. Such finding is based upon Kiousenterlis'conduct of copying large sections of a brief containingunvetted citations and quotations and unsupportedpropositions of law that were not tailored to the facts ofthe case, and which comprised a substantial portion of thedefendant's opposition.E. Lawyer's Duty Regarding Non-Meritorious Claims andContentions, Rule 3.1Rule 3.1 (a) provides that: "[a] lawyer shall not bringor defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issuetherein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doingso that is not frivolous." Rule 3.1 (b) states: "[a] lawyer'sconduct is 'frivolous'for purposes of this Rule if: . . . (3)the lawyer knowingly asserts material factual statements thatare false." Additionally, "the submission of nonexistent casesclearly qualifies as frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR §130-1.1(c)." Idehen, at *7.With respect to the conduct of plagiarism, lawyers must"inform themselves about the facts of their clients' cases andthe applicable law, and determine that they can make good-faith arguments in support of their clients' positions." Rule3.1, Comment 2; and see Formal Opinion 2018-3, supra.Here, this Court finds that Kiousenterlis and MMPSviolated Rule 3.1 by citing nonexistent cases, quotations,and unsupported propositions of law which is found tobe frivolous conduct pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1.Additionally, the Court finds that Kiousenterlis, Flemingand MMPS violated Rule 3.1 by plagiarizing from another'sbrief without informing themselves about the applicable factsand law thereby preventing them from making good-faitharguments in support of their client's position.F. Lawyer's Duty of Candor, Rule 3.3A lawyer has an ethical duty to be candid with the court at alltimes and must promptly correct any false statements of factor law previously made. Rule 3.3 of the New York Rules ofProfessional Conduct - Conduct Before a Tribunal providesthat a lawyer "shall not knowingly make a false statement offact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement ofmaterial fact or law previously made to the tribunal by thelawyer"Here, neither Kiousenterlis nor her supervising attorney,Fleming, was candid with the Court in the first instance afterthe alleged frivolous and unethical conduct was brought totheir attention. Prior to the hearing and both in responseto plaintiff's Reply Memorandum and letters advisingKiousenterlis of her alleged frivolous conduct, Kiousenterlisdid not candidly admit to the Court and her adversarieshow she committed such errors. In fact, in her responseletter to the Court (NYSCEF 32), Kiousenterlis specificallyfailed to include such information. The letter, althoughapologetic and admitting to "citation inaccuracies", neveridentified the "sourcing," nor did it admit to "plagiarizing,"or the other allegations including the nonexistent cases,nonexistent quotation, and unsupported propositions of law.In fact, Kiousenterlis specifically used the term "citationinaccuracies" and "alleged" when referring to the accusationsand requested to either withdraw its original opposition andpermit another attorney in the defendant's firm to submitnew papers or, in the alternative, to permit the defendant towithdraw "all references to the alleged improperly cited caselaw." (Id. 32). At the hearing, when questioned about her useof AI, Kiousenterlis stated that "when it was brought to ourattention from plaintiff's counsel, that's when I had learnedof the AI-generated cases through Westlaw's brief." (Hrg Tr47:12-15) Yet still she did not admit that in her letter.*10 Additionally, Fleming conceded that, upon learningof these allegations of frivolous and unethical conduct he
Michele Cassata, Ross Cassata, Plaintiffs, v. Michael..., --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26014 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.8and another senior member of the MMPS firm revisedKiousenterlis' response letter (NYSCEF 32). (Tr 15-16). Insuch letter to the Court, and although not granted permissionto file a sur-reply and in violation of Part 29 Court Rules,Kiousenterlis also inappropriately advanced further positionsin further support of her opposition to plaintiff's motion, alldone with the oversight of her supervising attorney, Fleming,and another senior member of the MMPS firm (Id.).22 NYCRR § 130-1.1(c) states:In determining whether the conduct undertaken was frivolous,the court shall consider, among other issues the circumstancesunder which the conduct took place, including the timeavailable for investigating the legal or factual basis of theconduct, and whether or not the conduct was continued whenits lack of legal or factual basis was apparent, should havebeen apparent, or was brought to the attention of counsel orthe party.With respect to the issue of plagiarism, Formal Opinion2018-3, supra at 15, provides that "[b]y omitting quotationmarks, the lawyer is adopting the prior source's wordstogether with the prior source's mistakes. See Scott Moise,Rocket Docket: The Joys and Perils of Online CourtDocuments, 22 S.C. Law. 46, 47 (May 2011) ('[t]he briefs maylook good and read well, but they may not be substantivelycorrect. For example, the cases cited in the briefs could havebeen misquoted, mischaracterized, or even overturned.')", oras in the instant case, contain nonexistent cases, quotationsand unsupported propositions of law.Accordingly, the Court determines that the conduct ofKiousenterlis, Fleming, and MMPS was frivolous pursuantto 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 and violated Rule 3.3 in that theyfailed to promptly correct their misstatements of fact and law.They also violated Rule 3.3 by plagiarizing without verifyingcitations, quotations and propositions of law from another'sbrief and thereby "adopt[ed] the prior source's words togetherwith the prior source's mistakes" Formal Opinion 2018-3,supra at 15.G. Lawyer's Duty of Supervision, Rule 5.1Rule 5.1 states that a "law firm shall make reasonable effortsto ensure that all lawyers in the firm conform to" the Rulesof Professional Conduct and that a "lawyer with managementresponsibility in a law firm shall make reasonable effortsto ensure that other lawyers in the law firm conform tothese Rules." Additionally, Rule 5.1 provides that a "lawyerwith direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shallmake reasonable efforts to ensure that the supervised lawyerconforms to these Rules" and that alaw firm shall ensure that the work of partners and associatesis adequately supervised, as appropriate. A lawyer with directsupervisory authority over another lawyer shall adequatelysupervise the work of the other lawyer, as appropriate. Ineither case, the degree of supervision required is that whichis reasonable under the circumstances, taking into accountfactors such as the experience of the person whose work isbeing supervised, the amount of work involved in a particularmatter, and the likelihood that ethical problems might arise inthe course of working on the matter.Further, Rule 5.1 states that alawyer shall be responsible for a violation of these Rules byanother lawyer if: (1) the lawyer orders or directs the specificconduct or, with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifiesit; or (2) the lawyer is a partner in a law firm or is a lawyerwho individually or together with other lawyers possessescomparable managerial responsibility in a law firm in whichthe other lawyer practices or is a lawyer who has supervisoryauthority over the other lawyer; and (i) knows of such conductat a time when it could be prevented or its consequencesavoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedialaction; or (ii) in the exercise of reasonable management orsupervisory authority should have known of the conduct sothat reasonable remedial action could have been taken at atime when the consequences of the conduct could have beenavoided or mitigated.*11 Here, there are two types of conduct thatviolate a lawyer's duty of supervision. First, the Courtconsiders whether the supervising attorney, Fleming, andMMPS adequately supervised Kiousenterlis, especiallyin light of Kiousenterlis' submission of oppositioncontaining nonexistent decisions, nonexistent quotations, andpropositions of law that are not supported by cases cited.Given that Kiousenterlis' supervising attorney, Fleming, didnot "really know how to use any AI stuff" and thereforecould not adequately supervise Kiousenterlis' use of the AI-enhanced Westlaw tool that MMPS had recently acquired, theCourt is persuaded that both Fleming and MMPS violatedRule 5.1 Second, when Kiousenterlis' conduct was challengedby opposing counsel, she was not candid with this Court in theNovember 25, 2025 letter in which Kiousenterlis respondedto plaintiff's accusations of plagiarism and misuse of AI. Suchletter was revised with the input of Kiousenterlis' supervising
Michele Cassata, Ross Cassata, Plaintiffs, v. Michael..., --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26014 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.9attorney, Fleming, and a senior member of the firm of MMPSbefore being submitted to the Court. The letter containedonly insignificant mitigation and remedial action whichwas insufficient to minimize wasted judicial resources, theresources of counsel and expense to the litigants. Accordingly,the Court is convinced that such conduct by both Flemingand MMPS violated Rule 5.1. "[S]upervision is a duty, not acourtesy" and "firm leaders remain guardians of their nameand their firm's reputation on every pleading." Mattox, at *8.IV. EVALUATION OF APPROPRIATE SANCTIONSIn learning of the alleged frivolous, unethical andsanctionable conduct of filing an opposition papercontaining nonexistent decisions, nonexistent quotations,and propositions of law that are not supported by casescited and plagairism, and after reviewing same, this Courtwas constrained to issue a Show Cause Order regardingsuch conduct. The Court in Ader recognized that "22NYCRR § 100.3(D)(2) provides that '[a] judge who receivesinformation indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyerhas committed a substantial violation of the Rules ofProfessional Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 1200) shall takeappropriate action.' " Id. at *3 Additionally, 22 NYCRR §130-1.1 states that a court may issue sanctions for frivolousconduct. And, the Court in United States v. McGee, 2025 WL2888065 [D.C. S.D. Ala. S. Div. Oct. 10, 2025] succinctly andsignificantly stated that:[t]he Court notes that errors can happen in filings despiteattorneys' (and even judges') best efforts. Yet the insertionof bogus citations is not a mere typographical error, nor thesubject of reasonable debate. It is just wrong. There has beena plethora of general warnings from courts, bar associations,and the legal community at large about the risks of boguscitations generated by AI. Id. at *7.The Court also considers that "any sanction imposed mustbe proportionate to the offense and commensurate withprinciples of restraint and dignity inherent in judicial power.This last principle includes a responsibility to consider theusefulness of more moderate penalties before imposing amonetary sanction." Zambrano v City of Tustin, 885 F. 2d1473, 1480 [9th Cir. Sept. 21, 1989]. Additionally, this Courtis particularly mindful that "[s]anctions under 22 NYCRR §130-1.1 serve two purposes; 1) punishment for past conduct;and 2) to deter future conduct by the parties or the Bar at large.(citations omitted)" Idehen, at *8.1. CONSIDERATION OF APOLOGIES OFKIOUSENTERLIS AND FLEMINGAlthough Kiousenterlis was apologetic in her less than candidNovember 25, 2025 letter to the Court (NYSCEF 32), andboth Kiousenterlis and Fleming expressed sincere apologiesto the Court and their adversary during the hearing, this Courtdraws guidance from the jurisprudence of other courts:Even in cases like this one, where lawyers who cite AIhallucinations accept responsibility and apologize profusely,much damage is done. The opposing party expends resourcesidentifying and exposing the fabrication; the court spendstime reviewing materials, holding hearings, deliberatingabout sanctions, and explaining its ruling; the substanceof the case is delayed; and public confidence about thetrustworthiness of legal proceedings may be diminished.McGee, 2025 WL 2888065 at *6, (citing Johnson v. Dunn,792 F. Supp. 3d 1241 [2025] 2025 WL 2086116 at *11).Accordingly, this Court has considered the apologiesproffered by Kiousenterlis and Fleming, and finds that"regret and apologies are not necessarily enough to avoid theimposition of sanctions for the submission of non-existentlegal authority. See Dehghani, 2025 WL 988009, at *5('While the Court acknowledges that [counsel] was sincerelyapologetic for his failure to ensure cases cited in his briefexisted and for the extra work this has caused the Court, he hasnonetheless failed to adhere to his obligations under [ethicalrules])' " Benjamin, 779 F. Supp. 3d 341. 350 [2025].*12 2. CONSIDERATION OF A "REDO"Turning to defendant's request for a "redo," as noted in Ader:'[T]he court rejects the invitation to consider that actualauthorities stand for the proposition that bogus authoritieswere offered to support' (Johnson v Dunn, 2025 WL 2086116,at *16 [ND Ala, July 23, 2025, 2:21-CV-1701-AMM]). Useof fake citations and quotations that may generally support"real" statements of law is no less frivolous. Indeed, when afake case is used to support an uncontroversial statement oflaw, opposing counsel and courts—which rely on the candorand veracity of counsel—in many instances would have noreason to doubt that the case exists. Ader, at *1And as stated by the Court in Grymes Dev. Co.:The Court cannot turn its back on what occurred hereby simply allowing the motion to be withdrawn without
Michele Cassata, Ross Cassata, Plaintiffs, v. Michael..., --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26014 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.10prejudice. Such a response would leave opposing counselwithout a remedy for their wasted time and leave clients,courts, and other practitioners that much more exposed tosimilar conduct in the future. Id. at *4.Further, the courts have a job to do - adjudicate and resolve thematters before them fairly and efficiently. When papers filedwith the court contain substantial errors that divert the courtaway from its core business, it compromises the court's abilityto perform its judicial function. "Thus, a court has inherentpower to take those reasonable and necessary steps deemedappropriate to enable it to perform efficiently the judicialfunction for which it has been constituted, that it protects itsdignity and integrity, including, to be certain, giving force andeffect to its lawful actions." People v Green, 170 Misc 2d 519,523 [Sup Ct Bronx County Nov. 1, 1996]Accordingly, this Court rejects the defendant's request for a"redo."3. CONSIDERATION OF KIOUSENTERLIS'INEXPERIENCE AS AN ATTORNEYKiousenterlis graduated law school in May 2023, beganworking at MMPS in September 2023, was admitted to thebar in September 2024, and voluntarily left MMPS November26, 2025.The Court has considered the lack of experience of the fairlynewly admitted attorney Kiousenterlis and looks for guidanceto the case of Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., 348 F.R.D. 489 [D.Wyo. February 24, 2025], which stated in pertinent part:Nevertheless, no inquiry cannot be deemed objectivelyreasonable even if the reliance is placed in an experiencedattorney. See IBT Emp. Grp. Welfare Fund v. CompassMins. Int'l, Inc., 723 F. Supp. 3d 1053, 1061 (D. Kan.2024) Every attorney learned in their first-year contractsclass that the failure to read a contract does not escapea signor of their contractual obligations. See generally 27Williston on Contracts § 70:114 (4th ed. 2009 & Supp.2024). Similarly, one who signs a motion or filing and failsto reasonably inspect the law cited therein violates [ethicalrules]. Wadsworth, 348 F.R.D. at 496.Accordingly, given all of the above, this Court can considerbut cannot and does not excuse the lack of experience ofKiousenterlis when determining sanctions.*13 4. CONSIDERATION OF SANCTIONS IMPOSEDBY OTHER COURTSFurther, this Court has considered sanctions imposed by othercourts throughout New York State and the country for similarmisconduct. Such sanctions include monetary sanctions,reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses, strikingthe offending filing, issuing an admonition, reprimand, orcensure, referring attorney to disciplinary bodies, revokingthe pro hac vice admission of attorney, directing the Clerkof Court to serve a copy of the sanctions order on all otherjudges in the jurisdiction, directing the attorney to file, notunder seal, a copy of the sanctions order in any case wherenthe attorney appeared as counsel and final judgment has notbeen rendered, directing the attorney to file, not under seal, acopy of the sanctions order in any case wherein the attorneyappears as counsel for twelve (12) months after the dateof such order, requiring the attorney to mail letters to eachjudge falsely identified as the author of nonexistent opinions,and ordering the attorney to attend CLE trainings regardingthe use of Artificial Intelligence. Two cases provide specificdetail regarding the imposition of sanctions by other courts:Hayes, at 1071-1072, and Mattox, at *6-7. Additionally, thisCourt has considered how other state and federal courts inNew York State, as well as other state and federal courtsaround the country have evaluated similar conduct, mitigatingand aggravating factors, and what sanctions were imposed.Attached as Exhibit A is a chart describing each of the casesread and thoroughly reviewed by this Court setting forth thoserelevant key considerations.2 Such attached 12 page chart ishereby incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forthverbatim in this Decision, Order and Judgment.Additionally, in determining how to evaluate appropriatesanctions in the instant matter for the frivolous and unethicalconduct as detailed herein, this Court is provided furtherguidance by the Court in Mattox which identifies three corefactors to be considered:*14 1. Verification and Inquiry — Whether counselconducted a reasonable, human-based verification of everycited authority before filing. A reasonable inquiry requiresmore than reliance on an automated tool; it demandsindependent confirmation through recognized primary legalsources. The signature of an attorney certifies humandiligence, not mechanical output.2. Candor and Correction — Whether counsel promptlydisclosed the use of AI and corrected the record
Michele Cassata, Ross Cassata, Plaintiffs, v. Michael..., --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26014 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.11once inaccuracies were discovered. Candor after filingweighs heavily in mitigation; concealment or minimizationaggravates the violation. The duty of candor extends beyondthe moment of signature, it continues for as long as the filingremains before the Court.3. Accountability and Supervision — Whether supervisingor associated attorneys exercised oversight consistent withModel Rules 5.1 and 5.3 [NY ST RPC Rule 5.1 and 5.3] andwhether firm-level safeguards existed to prevent recurrence.The inquiry extends beyond the drafter to the institutionalculture that permitted unverified authority to reach the docket.A firm's silence or absence of policy does not immunize it; itimplicates it. Mattox, at *5.Here, with respect to factor 1, this Court finds thatKiousenterlis did not conduct a reasonable, human-basedverification of every cited authority befire filing heropposition.With respect to factor 2, as detailed above, the Court findsthat Kiousenterlis, Fleming, and MMPS all failed to promptlycorrect the record once inaccuracies were discovered.With respect to factor 3, prior to the hearing, and asdetailed above, the Court finds that the supervising attorneyand MMPS failed in their oversight consistent with Rule5.1, and they had insufficient firm-level safeguards toavoid recurrence. Fleming, the supervising attorney forKiousenterlis and the attorney representing the firm MMPS,stated that "MMPS conducted additional firm-wide trainingon the importance of complying with our handbookprovisions regarding the use of AI" (NYSCEF 38). However,the AI provisions of the handbook do not address theconduct claimed by Kiousenterlis in the instant case - thatKiousenterlis did not use AI but copied and pasted withoutverifying from someone else's brief that allegedly usedAI. When the Court questioned Fleming that if in factKiousenterlis did not use AI as she claimed, and the firm isnot also training people not to copy and paste a brief that usedAI, could that be a hole in their policy. He candidly admittedthat was a possibility. Fleming also stated that after this he willensure that the firm's attorneys "are not simply plagiarizingbriefs or simply cutting and pasting from briefs" as well. TheCourt takes this into consideration.E. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONSNo court ever aspires to issue sanctions against its fellowmembers of the bar, or prepare for and conduct a sanctionshearing which diverts the court away from its regular courseof business—its main objective of adjudicating and resolvingmatters before it efficiently, promptly, and fairly. This Courtverily believes that the best method to avoid committingsanctionable unprofessional conduct is through education.Nevertheless, when a court is confronted with improperconduct that rises to the level that it interferes with theadministration of justice, as here, it is the responsibility andduty of the court to take appropriate action.*15 Now upon a hearing being held and each party subjectto sanctions having had a full and complete opportunity tobe heard, the Court must take appropriate action. In theinstant matter and considering everything set forth herein,this Court does not believe that appropriate action includesreferring counsel to the Grievance/Disciplinary Committee.Additionally, although not directing Attorney Maria-EleniKiousenterlis, Esq., Attorney Thomas M. Fleming, II, Esq. ormembers of the Law Office of Milber Makris Plousadis &Seiden, LLP to educate themselves on the use of GenerativeArtificial Intelligence,3 this Court is highly recommendingthey take CLE courses on the subject so that they do not findthemselves in a similar situation in the future wherein thesanctions may not be as lenient.In applying the Mattox principles of the three core factors tothe instant case as discussed herein, and while consideringthe attorneys' ethical duties and violations thereof and theirfrivolous conduct as specified herein, both the mitigatingand aggravating factors as discussed above, and upon allthe foregoing, and this Court's inherent power, this Courtdetermines sanctions as follows, and it is herebyORDERED and ADJUDGEDthat the Opposition filed onNovember 17, 2025 (NYSCEF 17, 22) is Stricken and theClerk of the Court is directed to mark the file accordingly;and it is furtherORDEREDthat Attorney Maria-Eleni Kiousenterlis, Esq. isdirected to file a copy of this Decision, Order and JudgmentAfter Sanctions Hearing upon the Clerk of the Court withinfive (5) business days of the date of this Order and file theAffidavit of Service to NYSCEF within ten (10) business daysand pay any required fees to effectuate the above; and it isfurtherORDERED and ADJUDGEDthat Attorney Maria-EleniKiousenterlis, Esq. shall pay a $1,000.00 fine payable tothe Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection, 119 WashingtonAvenue, Albany, New York 12210, within ten (10) business
Michele Cassata, Ross Cassata, Plaintiffs, v. Michael..., --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26014 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12days of the date of this Order and file proof of payment toNYSCEF within fifteen (15) days; and it is furtherORDEREDthat Attorney Maria-Eleni Kiousenterlis, Esq.shall serve a copy of this Decision, Order and JudgmentAfter Sanctions Hearing upon the Lawyer's Fund for ClientProtection, 119 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York12210, within five (5) business days of the date of this Orderand file the Affidavit of Service to NYSCEF within ten (10)business days; and it is furtherORDERED and ADJUDGEDthat Attorney Thomas M.Fleming, II, Esq., shall pay a $1,000.00 fine payable tothe Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection, 119 WashingtonAvenue, Albany, New York 12210, within ten (10) businessdays of the date of this Order and file proof of payment toNYSCEF within fifteen (15) days; and it is furtherORDEREDthat Attorney Thomas M. Fleming, II, Esq.shall serve a copy of this Decision, Order and JudgmentAfter Sanctions Hearing upon the Lawyer's Fund for ClientProtection, 119 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York12210, within five (5) business days of the date of this Orderand file the Affidavit of Service to NYSCEF within ten (10)business days; and it is furtherORDERED and ADJUDGEDthat the Law Office of MilberMakris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP shall pay reasonableattorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the amount of$8,000.00 payable to the attorneys for plaintiff, RuskinMoscou Faltischek, P.C., within ten (10) business days of thedate of this Order and file proof of payment to NYSCEFwithin fifteen (15) days; and it is furtherORDERED and ADJUDGEDthat the Law Office of MilberMakris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP shall serve a copy of thisDecision, Order and Judgment After Sanctions Hearing upontheir client, the defendant, within five (5) business days of thedate of this Order and file the Affidavit of Service to NYSCEFwithin ten (10) business days.*16 Dated: 1.27.26Linda Kevins, JSCEXHIBIT ASANCTIONS CHART FOR AI HALLUCINATIONCASESNY State Court Cases: Linda Kevins, JSC and ThomasMarino, Esq.Citation: (NYFormat) Court: S= State F=Fed P= Pro seA=Atty Conduct: Court Considered:Bold IndicatesRule Applied. + =Mitigating Factor- = AggravatingFactor = OtherConsiderations X =Does Not Apply Sanction(s)Imposed: Deutsche BankNatl. Tr. Co. vLeTennier, 2026NY Slip Op 00040[3d Dept Jan. 8,2026] S NY (AD) A & P •Non-Existent/Erroneous CasesTotaled 23,Numerous Filings •Unsupported LegalPropositions 22 NYCRR130-1.1(c) NYRPC 3.3 - NoPrompt Admissionor RemedialMeasure whenAlerted - AfterAlerted, Continued& Added MoreHallucinations - NotCandid w/ Court • $7,500 Fine, Atty•$2,500 Fine, ProSe Matter of Matos,245 NYS3d 42 [1stDept 2025] S NY (AD) A • Non-Existent/Erroneous Cases• ErroneousQuotations •Unsupported LegalPropositions 1st Findingin ForeignJurisdiction, 2dFinding basedupon ReciprocalDiscipline Initiatedby NY Grievance1st PublicReprimand CLE 2dPublic Censure
Michele Cassata, Ross Cassata, Plaintiffs, v. Michael..., --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26014 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.13Comm. to NY1st Dept. (Here)USPTO RPCSimilar to: NYRPC 1.1, 1.3, 8.41st + Admitted AIUse for Learning+ Admitted DidNot Verify Cites ?Denied AI Usefor Cites 2d +Completed CLE Grymes Dev. Co.v Fodera, 2025 NYSlip Op 25245 [SupCt Nov. 10, 2025] S NY A Non-Existent/ErroneousCase ErroneousQuotations 22 NYCRR130-1.1(c) NYRPC 3.3 +Prompt AdmissionWhen Alertedby Adversaryin their Opp +Apology Sought toWithdraw Papersw/o Prejudice,AdversaryObjected $2,000 Fine$11,718.50 &$5,275 in Atty FeesMotion Denied w/Prejudice Augustin v Formula3 Brooklyn Inc.,244 NYS3d 464[Sup Ct 2025] S NY P Non-Existent/Erroneous Cases - Court PreviouslyWarned Pro Ses reAI Use No SanctionImposed But Basedon All Submissions- Motion Denied NewRez LLC vMorton, 242 AD3d416 [1st Dept 2025] S NY P 4 Non-Existent/Erroneous Cases + Court Lenient toPro Se No SanctionsImposed Ader v Ader, 87Misc 3d 1213(A)[Sup Ct 2025] S NY A (1st Filing) Non-Existent/ErroneousCases ErroneousQuotations (2ndFiling) Non-Existent/ErroneousCases ErroneousQuotationsUnsupported LegalPropositions 22 NYCRR130-1.1(c) NYRPC 3.3 - NoPrompt Admissionor RemedialMeasure whenAlerted - WhenAlerted, Continuedand Added MoreHallucinations -Not Candid w/Court - MadeMisrepresentationsto Court Atty Fees AttyReferred toDisciplinary Bodiesin 2 States Idehen v Stoute-Philli p, 86 Misc3d 1244(A) [Civ Ct2025] S NY A 7 Non-Existent/Erroneous CasesUnsupported LegalPropositions 22 NYCRR130-1.1(c) (Lookedto Rule 11) -Blamed Health- Not Candid w/Court - Atty StatesUsed "WestlawSupported by$1,000 FineAtty Referred toDisciplinary Bodiesin 3 Dists. ServeClient Order
Michele Cassata, Ross Cassata, Plaintiffs, v. Michael..., --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26014 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.14Google Co-Pilot" (Co-Pilotis MicrosoftNOT Google) -First, ClaimedSystem Affectedby Malware -Wanted to CallExpert. Then, AfterRecess, Retreatedto Original Positionof Co-Pilot Will of Samuel, 82Misc 3d 616 [SurCt 2024] S NY A 5 Non-Existent/Erroneous CasesUnsupported LegalPropositions 22 NYCRR130-1.1(c) NoAdmission WhenAlerted *17 Struck FiledPapers ScheduledSanctions Hearing Other State Court Cases:Citation: (NYFormat) Court: S= State F=Fed P= Pro Se A=Atty Conduct: Court Considered:Bold IndicatesRule Applied. + =Mitigating Factor- = AggravatingFactor • = OtherConsiderations X =Does Not Apply Sanction(s)Imposed: Mezu v Mezu, 267Md App 354, 346A3d 181 [Md CtSpec App 2025],reconsiderationdenied (Nov. 24,2025) S MD (AD) A Non-Lawyer LawClerk for Atty UsedChatGPT, Google,VLex, CourtListener, CaseMine& Justia Non-Existent/ErroneousCases ErroneousQuotationsUnsupported LegalPropositions Rule 11 similar toMD RPC 1-311 MDRPC 19-303.1, MDRPC 19-305.3 AttyDelegated Work &Verifying to Non-Lawyer Law ClerkLaw Clerk Did NotUnderstand UsingSystems = AI Use- Atty Admits thatTypically DoesNot Read CasesCited to Court- Atty Does NotUnderstand or UseAI + Atty & LawClerk Did CLE+ Atty AcceptedResponsibility+ Atty AdmittedDid Not Verify +Atty ImplementedRemedialMeasures ofProtocols forVerification Atty Referred toDisciplinary BodyNo Leave to Re-File
Michele Cassata, Ross Cassata, Plaintiffs, v. Michael..., --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26014 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.15Noland v Land ofthe Free, L.P., 114Cal App 5th 426,336 Cal Rptr 3d897 [Cal Ct App2025] S CA A Used ChatGPT,Claude, Gemini,& Grok Non-Existent/ErroneousCases ErroneousQuotationsUnsupported LegalPropositions CA RPC AdversaryDid Not AlertCourt or File Affof Services = NoFee + Admitted AIUse & Not Verified- Requested toRevise "CitationIrregularities" $10,000 FineOrder Sent toDisciplinary BodyServe Client OrderDecline to PermitRevised Papers Garner v Kadince,Inc., 2025 UT App80, 571 P3d 812 S UT A Non-Lawyer LawClerk for AttyUsed ChatGPTNon-Existent/Erroneous CasesUnsupported LegalPropositions Rule 40 of AP -UT + AcceptedResponsibility +Atty Admissionof AI Use & NotVerifying + InitiatedAI Policy AfterOTSC + Offered toPay Atty Fees ofAdversary Atty Fees RefundTheir Client $1,000Fine Smith v Farwell[Mass Super,Norfolk County2024] S MS A Interns DraftedPapers AfterFurther ReviewCourt Discovered2 Opp PapersContaining 3 Non-Existent/ErroneousCases MA R. Civ.P. 11 and 7 -Blame Shiftingto UnknownAI System -Unfamiliar w/AI systems +Admitted to AI Use& Not Verifying +Remedial Actionof Subscribing toLEXIS + Apology+ Filed AmendedPapers w/o Non-Existent/ErroneousCases $2,000 Fine Ex parte Lee, 673SW3d 755 [TexApp 2023] S TC A Criminal case3 Non-Existent/ErroneousCases ErroneousQuotationsUnsupported LegalPropositions - When Alerted,Pro Se NeitherContestedNor CorrectedDeficiencies Application Denied,Papers InsufficientNo OTSC NoSanctions Scott v Fed. Nat.Mortg. Ass'n[Me Super,CumberlandCounty 2023], affdsub nom. Scott vFed. Natl. Mtge.Assn. [Me Apr. 23,2024] S ME P Non-Existent/ErroneousCases ErroneousQuotations Rule 11 Atty Fees Federal Court Cases:
Michele Cassata, Ross Cassata, Plaintiffs, v. Michael..., --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26014 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.16Editor's Note: Tabular or Graphical Material notdisplayable at this time.All Citations--- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2026 WL 263521, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26014Footnotes1The cases cited in italics below (1-6) are all the subject of the allegations regarding unverified caselaw.2The undersigned is a member of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) Artificial IntelligenceImplementers' Forum and the Thomson Reuters Institute/NCSC Artificial Intelligence Policy Consortium onLaw and Courts, Rules and Practices Committee which provide numerous resources to the Bench andBar at: https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/institute/ai-in-courts-resource-center. Further, the undersigned,along with Thomas Marino, Esq., are the Co-Founders of the NYS Suffolk County Bar Association ArtificialIntelligence Committee and have served as Co-Chairs since its inception in 2023, and have since lecturedon the subject of Artificial Intelligence and the Courts both locally and nationally. The graph was composedby the undersigned and Thomas Marino, Esq. as a tool for a CLE to assist members of the bar and thejudiciary to avoid the risks of using unverified Generative Artificial Intelligence for research and drafting. Thisinformation is also included because it provides helpful resources, proper attribution, and education, whichaffords a more measured method "to deter future conduct by the parties or the Bar at large." Idehen at *8.3A specific NYS CLE requirement mandating AI-related training is being considered. See N.Y.S. U.C.S.Advisory Committee Report on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts, December 2025, at page 21.End of Document© 2026 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