Julien v. Arthur (Apr. 16, 2024)

Case details
Full caption
In the Matter of Kevin A. Julien v. Danielle M. Arthur
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
New York (NY)
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Decided
Apr. 16, 2024
Disposition
Motion Granted
Panel
Duffy (J.); Landicino (J.); Quirk (J.)
Opinion
Per curiam
In the Matter of Kevin A. Julien, appellant, v. Danielle M. Arthur, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In..., ---N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 03308 WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 1476261Supreme Court, Appellate Division,Second Department, New York.In the Matter of Kevin A. Julien, appellant,v.Danielle M. Arthur,respondent. (Proceeding No. 1)In the Matter of DanielleM. Arthur, respondent,v.Kevin A. Julien, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)2024–03307|(Docket Nos. V-4283-21,V-4283-21/23B,V-4283-21/23C, V-4709-21,V-4709-21/23B,V-4709-21/23C, O-12667-23, O-12667-23/23A)|Argued - January 8, 2026|May 27, 2026Attorneys and Law FirmsAPPEAL by the father, in related proceedings pursuant toFamily Court Act articles 6 and 8, from an order of theFamily Court (Gregory L. Gliedman, J.), dated April 16,2024, and entered in Kings County. The order, insofar asappealed from, after a hearing, granted the mother's petitionfor sole legal and residential custody of the parties' child, withcertain parental access to the father. By order to show causedated January 14, 2026, this Court directed the parties to showcause before this Court why an order should not be madeand entered imposing sanctions and/or costs, if any, as thisCourt may deem appropriate, against the appellant pursuantto 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 for filing a brief containing fabricatedlegal authority. The motion was held in abeyance and referredto the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determinationupon the argument or submission thereof. Kevin A. Julien,Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se.Geanine Towers, Brooklyn, NY, for respondent.WOOTEN, J. This appeal presents this Court with theopportunity to address an emerging issue with broad andsignificant implications—the usage of generative artificialintelligence (hereinafter GenAI) in drafting appellate briefs—which has the potential to produce misleading or inaccurateinformation, including citations to nonexistent cases. We holdthat the unverified usage of GenAI to draft an appellate briefcontaining false information constitutes frivolous conductwarranting the imposition of a sanction, even when theoffending party is a pro se litigant.COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P. PAUL WOOTEN CARL J.LANDICINO SUSAN QUIRK, JJ.Argued—January 8, 2026OPINION & ORDER*1 I. Relevant Factual BackgroundThe parties, who were never married, are the parents of achild, born in June 2020. In March 2021, the father filed apetition pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for parentalaccess with the child, who resided with the mother. In May2021, the mother filed a petition pursuant to Family CourtAct article 6 for sole legal and residential custody of thechild. Thereafter, the Family Court issued a temporary orderof parental access awarding the father certain parental accesswith the child.In June 2023, the mother filed a family offense petitionpursuant to Family Court Act article 8, alleging, inter alia, thatthe father failed to return the child at the end of his scheduledparental access on multiple occasions and that the fatherassaulted the child's maternal aunt and maternal grandmotherin the presence of the child during an exchange of the child forscheduled parental access with the father. In July and August2023, the father filed petitions pursuant to Family Court Actarticle 6, alleging that the mother violated the terms of anorder of parental access.On October 12, 2023, the Family Court issued a temporaryorder of protection in favor of the mother, directing the father,among other things, to stay away from the mother except forcourt-ordered parental access. In November 2023, the motherfiled a petition pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, allegingthat the father violated the temporary order of protection datedOctober 12, 2023.Commencing on October 12, 2023, the Family Courtconducted a consolidated hearing on the parties' petitions.During the hearing, the father testified, inter alia, that the
In the Matter of Kevin A. Julien, appellant, v. Danielle M. Arthur, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In..., ---N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 03308 WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2mother failed to produce the child for parental access with thefather on multiple occasions. Further, testimony was elicitedfrom the mother that on July 1, 2023, the father assaulted herat a police precinct station house during an exchange of thechild. The mother acknowledged that she did not produce thechild for subsequent parental access with the father from July2023 to September 2023 because she was fearful of the father.The mother also testified that when parental access with thefather resumed, the father failed to return the child to themother in September 2023, as he also had done on previousoccasions, requiring the mother to file a writ for the child'sreturn.In an order dated April 16, 2024, made after the hearing,the Family Court, among other things, granted the mother'spetition for sole legal and residential custody of the child, withcertain parental access to the father. The court determined,inter alia, that (1) the mother had been the primary parent forthe child since the child's birth and had provided for the child'sneeds; (2) the father “has done virtually nothing to ensurethat [the child's] needs have been addressed”; (3) the fatherassaulted the mother in the presence of the child; and (4) themother had to obtain a writ for the return of the child whenthe father refused to return the child as ordered. The fatherappeals.*2 II. The Father's Appellate BriefIn June 2025, the father, acting pro se, submitted an appellatebrief in which he argued that the Family Court was biasedagainst him, that the court's decision relied on “false factsfrom another case,” and that the parental access awarded tohim was contrary to the child's best interests.The father's appellate brief was highly suggestive of havingbeen created with the aid of GenAI in several respects.Most significantly, the father's appellate brief contained acitation to a nonexistent decision purportedly issued bythe Appellate Division, First Department, in support of thefather's claim of judicial bias. In addition, in four instances thefather's appellate brief contained bracketed language statingthat “Appellant” was to provide information. For instance,following the father's statement that “the Family Court reliedon false facts from another case,” the father's appellate briefstates “[Appellant to provide specific details of the allegedfalse facts and the other case].”In the mother's appellate brief, she argued, among otherthings, that the father's appellate brief appeared to be theproduct of GenAI and that his appellate brief included afictional citation to a nonexistent case. The mother assertedthat the father's failure to take any steps to verify that theinformation and citations he presented to this Court werelegitimate constituted frivolous conduct warranting sanctions,including dismissal of the appeal.On January 14, 2026, by order to show cause, this Courtdirected the parties to show cause why an order shouldnot be made and entered imposing sanctions and/or costs,if any, as this Court may deem appropriate, against thefather pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 for filing a briefcontaining fabricated legal authority. Thereafter, the fathersubmitted an affirmation wherein he acknowledged that “thelegal authority in question was extracted from an internetsource that appeared genuine.” The father stated that “[a]sa self-represented litigant, I utilized these tools to assist inmy advocacy, and I mistakenly believed the informationprovided was accurate and legitimate.” The father added anapology to this Court for “wast[ing] the Court's time andresources” through his “total, but misplaced, reliance on theresearch tools [he] was using” and averred that the filing ofhis appellate brief was “made in good faith.”The mother has not submitted an affirmation in response tothe order to show cause.III. The Use of GenAI in Drafting BriefsCourts across the country have recognized the pitfalls posedby the use of GenAI in drafting briefs and other memorandawithout verifying the accuracy of the information generated(see e.g. Smith v. Smith, 2025 WL 3706691, *3, 2025 U.S.Dist LEXIS 263592, *7–8 [ND NY, No. 5:25–CV–1077(MAD/DJS) ]; Jarrus v. Governor of Michigan, 2025 WL3146421, *6, 2025 U.S. Dist LEXIS 221984, *17–18 [EDMich, No. 25–11168–FKB–APP]; OTG New York, Inc. v.OTTOGI Am., Inc., 2025 WL 2671460, *2–3, 2025 U.S.Dist LEXIS 183358, *5–6 [D NJ, No. 24–cv–07209 (BRM)(JRA) ]; United States v. McGee, 806 F Supp 3d 1264, 1269[SD Ala]; Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., 348 FRD 489, 492–493 [D Wyo] ). In particular, courts have noted the risk ofGenAI “hallucinations,” which may take the form of citationsto nonexistent cases, fabricated quotations from actual cases,or misstatements of law that are not representative of whata case actually decided (Braica v. Frankowski, 2025 WL3644231, *5, 2025 U.S. Dist LEXIS 263098, *12 [D Conn,No. 3:24–CV–1709 (VDO) ] ). The danger posed by GenAIhallucinations lies not merely in their inaccuracy, but alsoin their tendency to masquerade as a genuine citation orstatement of law (see OTG New York, Inc. v. OTTOGI Am.,
In the Matter of Kevin A. Julien, appellant, v. Danielle M. Arthur, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In..., ---N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 03308 WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3Inc., 2025 WL 2671460, *2, 2025 U.S. Dist LEXIS 183358,*5–6), resulting in a waste of time and money to the opposingparty “in exposing the deception” and an unnecessary burdenon the court's resources (Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F Supp 3d443, 448 [SD NY, No. 22–cv–1461 (PKC) ] ).*3 Consequently, various courts have determined thatreliance by an attorney or party on GenAI to draft legalmemoranda containing GenAI hallucinations constitutesfrivolous conduct warranting the imposition of sanctions (seee.g. Fletcher v Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 168 F4th 231[5th Cir]; Amarsingh v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., 2026 WL352016, *6–7, 2026 U.S. App LEXIS 3928, *17–20 [10thCir, No. 24–1391]; Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com,Inc., 2026 WL 265581, 2026 U.S. Dist LEXIS 20994 [DKan, No. 22–2324–JAR]; Dubinin v. Papazian, 2025 WL3248187, *3, 2025 U.S. Dist LEXIS 229362, *9–10 [SD Fla,No. 25–CV–23877–RAR]; Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F Supp3d at 466–467). Further, courts have stressed that even prose litigants, who are typically afforded greater leniency thanparties represented by an attorney, may be subject to sanctionsfor presenting fabricated case citations or misrepresentationsresulting from reliance on GenAI (see Button v. McCawley,2026 WL 292150, *4, 2026 U.S. Dist LEXIS 23074, *10[SD Fla, No. 0:24–cv–60911–LEIBOWITZ/AUGUSTIN–BIRCH] [“(c)ourts in this district have not hesitated tosanction parties, even pro se litigants, for fake or hallucinatedcitations” (emphasis omitted) ]; Kulkarni v. Merit Sys.Protection Bd., 2025 WL 3627611, *3, 2025 U.S. App LEXIS32662, *6 [Fed Cir, No.2025–1597, 2025–1598] [“(w)hile prose litigants are understandably held to a less stringent standardthan parties represented by counsel, a baseline, common-sense standard nonetheless requires that all parties refrainfrom citing non-existent case law and quoting non-existentlanguage”]; Braica v. Frankowski, 2025 WL 3644231, *5,2025 U.S. Dist LEXIS 263098, *13–14 [noting that theplaintiff's statement that he failed to verify the accuracy ofhis submissions containing GenAI hallucinations because heis a pro se party lacking legal training “undermine(s) thecapabilities of pro se litigants” (emphasis omitted) ]; Moorev. City of Del City, 2025 WL 3471341, *3, 2025 U.S. AppLEXIS 31411, *8 [10th Cir, No. 25–6002] [warning futurelitigants, pro se and those represented by counsel alike, ofthe possibility of sanctions, monetary and otherwise, resultingfrom “the unscrutinized use of GenAI”]; Anonymous v NewYork City Dept. of Educ., 2024 WL 3460049, *7, 2024 U.S.Dist LEXIS 127114, *20 [SD NY, No. 1:24–cv–04232 (JLR) ][“(w)ithout question, it is improper and unacceptable forlitigants—including pro se litigants—to submit non-existentjudicial opinions with fake quotes and citations” (emphasisand internal quotation marks omitted) ] ).While this Court has not yet had the opportunity to addressthe issue of the unverified usage of GenAI to draft briefs andother legal memoranda, other Appellate Departments in NewYork have confronted the issue. In Dowlah v ProfessionalStaff Congress (PSC–CUNY) (227 AD3d 609, 610), theAppellate Division, First Department, noted that the plaintiffcited several nonexistent cases in a memorandum of law,which the plaintiff acknowledged in a reply brief was theresult of “legal software applications” that deploy artificialintelligence (internal quotation marks omitted). While notimposing a sanction, the First Department “caution[ed]plaintiff that his pro se status does not excuse his failure tocheck the legal citations that he offers to a court” (id.).Further, in NewRez LLC v. Morton (242 AD3d 416), the FirstDepartment declined to impose a sanction on the defendantfor citing to four nonexistent cases. The First Departmentreasoned that “[a]lthough such citations should generallywarrant sanctions, and a party's pro se status should not renderthe party immune, in this instance the Court is mindful toafford leniency to the pro se defendant” (id. at 417).Also of note, in Matter of Zareh (_____ AD3d _____,2026 N.Y. Slip Op 00619), the First Department determined,in the context of an attorney disciplinary proceeding,that a public censure was an appropriate sanction for anattorney who submitted a brief containing citation errors andmisrepresentations of case law, which was determined to havebeen drafted using GenAI.In contrast to the First Department's decisions, whichdid not impose monetary sanctions for the submission ofmaterials containing GenAI hallucinations, the AppellateDivision, Third Department, in Deutsche Bank Natl. TrustCo. v LeTennier (_____ AD3d _____, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op00040), granted the plaintiff's motion, inter alia, to imposesanctions against the defendant and the defendant's attorneyfor submitting a brief containing fabricated cases believed tobe the result of GenAI (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. vLeTennier, _____ AD3d at _____, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op 00040,*8). In that case, the defendant submitted a brief containingcitations to six nonexistent cases. The Third Departmentnoted that in response to the plaintiff's motion, amongother things, to sanction the defendant and the defendant'sattorney, the defendant “claimed the nonexistent cases werecitation or formatting errors that he would correct in his
In the Matter of Kevin A. Julien, appellant, v. Danielle M. Arthur, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In..., ---N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 03308 WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4reply brief, and then opposed the motion for sanctions withmore fake cases and interpretations for existing cases thatare at best strenuously attenuated, and at worse entirelyinapposite” (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v LeTennier,_____ AD3d at _____, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op 00040, *3).The defendant then submitted a reply brief that “failed tooffer any corrections or further explanation” (Deutsche BankNatl. Trust Co. v LeTennier, _____ AD3d at _____, 2026N.Y. Slip Op 00040, *3). Following the submission of hisreply brief, the defendant submitted two letters to the ThirdDepartment containing “more fake cases and false legalpropositions” (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v LeTennier,_____ AD3d at _____, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op 00040, *3).The Third Department noted that the defendant's attorney“reluctantly conceded during oral argument that he used AIin the preparation of his papers” (Deutsche Bank Natl. TrustCo. v LeTennier, _____ AD3d at _____, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op00040, *3). In total, the defendant's multiple filings duringthe appeal included “23 fabricated cases, as well as manyother blatant misrepresentations of fact or law from actualcases” (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v LeTennier, _____AD3d at _____, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op 00040, *3).*4 The Third Department, in Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co.v LeTennier, determined that the “submission of fabricatedlegal authorities is completely without merit in law andtherefore constitutes frivolous conduct” pursuant to 22NYCRR 130–1.1(c)(1) (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. vLeTennier, _____ AD3d at _____, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op 00040,*5). The Third Department noted that it was “most troubled”by the fact that “more than half of the fake cases offeredby defendant came after he was on notice of such issue,whereby his reliance on fabricated legal authorities grew moreprolific as this appeal proceeded—despite it being apparent tohim that such conduct lacked a legal basis” (Deutsche BankNatl. Trust Co. v LeTennier, _____ AD3d at _____, 2026N.Y. Slip Op 00040, *5 [emphasis omitted] ). In assessingthe appropriate sanction, the Third Department stated thatrelevant factors to consider included “the conduct of theattorney or party offering such fabricated legal authorities,including the number of fake cases or propositions, whetherthere were fake quotes, if the submitter continued to use orcreate more fabricated authorities across other filings in thesame proceeding after being on notice of the misconduct,there was an admission of the error, there was remorse andthe extent of the impact that the fabricated legal authoritieshad on the proceedings” (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. vLeTennier, _____ AD3d at _____, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op 00040,*6). The Third Department concluded that it was appropriateto impose a monetary sanction on the defendant's attorney inthe sum of $5,000 for the use of erroneous reliance on GenAI“without human oversight” (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co.v LeTennier, _____ AD3d at _____, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op00040, *7). The Third Department also imposed an additionalsanction of $2,500 on the defendant's attorney (for a totalsanction of $7,500) and $2,500 on the defendant due to the“baseless nature of th[e] appeal” (Deutsche Bank Natl. TrustCo. v LeTennier, _____ AD3d at _____, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op00040, *7).IV. Sanctions for Frivolous Conduct in this Case“Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1(a), a court may imposefinancial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil actionor proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct” (Aretakisv. CPEX Real Estate, LLC, 246 AD3d 691, 693). “Conductis frivolous if: (1) it is completely without merit in lawand cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for anextension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it isundertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of thelitigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) itasserts material factual statements that are false” (id. [internalquotation marks omitted]; see 22 NYCRR 130–1.1[c] ).Here, by filing an appellate brief citing to a nonexistent caseas the sole support for his claim of judicial bias, the fatherengaged in conduct that was “completely without merit inlaw and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument foran extension, modification or reversal of existing law” (22NYCRR 130–1.1[c][1]; see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. vLeTennier, _____ AD3d at _____, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op 00040,*5), and that involved the assertion of “material factualstatements that are false” (22 NYCRR 130–1.1[c][3] ). Thus,the father's reliance on GenAI, without taking the time toverify that the limited number of cases in his appellate briefstood for the propositions cited, let alone were actually inexistence, constituted frivolous conduct.The more difficult question before this Court is theappropriate sanction to impose on the father for engagingin frivolous conduct. The circumstances of this case are farless egregious than those in Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co.v LeTennier, as the father cited only 1 nonexistent case incontrast to the 23 fabricated cases cited in LeTennier over thecourse of multiple filings. Moreover, in contrast to LeTennier,once the father was alerted to the issue, he did not persistin citing to nonexistent cases and readily acknowledgedhis misplaced reliance on GenAI. In addition, whereas the
In the Matter of Kevin A. Julien, appellant, v. Danielle M. Arthur, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In..., ---N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 03308 WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5defendant in LeTennier was represented by counsel, the fatherin this case is acting pro se.Nevertheless, the mere fact that the father's conduct wasnot as egregious as that of the defendant in LeTennier doesnot obviate the need for a sanction. The failure to verifyeven a single GenAI citation to a fictitious case may warrantthe imposition of sanctions to account for the unnecessarywaste of resources of the Court and of opposing parties(see Grymes Dev. Co. v. Fodera, 88 Misc.3d 767 [Sup Ct,Richmond County] ). Further, the mere fact of a party's pro sestatus “does not excuse [the party's] failure to check the legalcitations” presented to the Court (Dowlah v Professional StaffCongress [PSC–CUNY], 227 AD3d at 610). Moreover, theimposition of a sanction for frivolous conduct serves not onlyto punish a party for the offending conduct, but also to deterfuture frivolous conduct by other pro se litigants and attorneys(see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v LeTennier, _____ AD3dat _____, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op 00040, *5–6; Leggio v. Leggio,183 A.D.2d 815, 816).*5 Under the circumstances presented, and taking intoaccount the father's acknowledgment of responsibility for hisconduct without further reoccurrence, we deem it appropriateto impose a monetary sanction in the sum of $250. We alsocaution the father that any misuse of GenAI in future filingsmay result in a greater sanction.V. Merits of the AppealTurning to the merits of the instant appeal, we determine thatthe Family Court properly granted the mother's petition forsole legal and residential custody of the child, with certainparental access to the father. We note that in reaching thisdetermination, we have not drawn any unfavorable inferenceagainst the father as the result of his reliance on GenAI indrafting his appellate brief.“The paramount concern in matters of custody and parentalaccess is the best interests of the child under the totality ofthe circumstances” (Matter of Navarro v. Clarke, 232 AD3d797, 798 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). “Since theFamily Court's determination with respect to custody andparental access depends to a great extent upon its assessmentof the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character,temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings aregenerally accorded great deference and will not be disturbedunless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record”(Matter of Freyer v. Macruari, 234 AD3d 755, 756 [internalquotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Watling v. Watling,236 AD3d 1047, 1048).Here, the Family Court's determination that an award of solelegal and residential custody of the child to the mother was inthe child's best interests has a sound and substantial basis inthe record. Accepting the court's credibility determinations,the evidence presented at the hearing showed, inter alia,that the mother, who has been the child's primary caretakersince birth, was better suited to promote stability in thechild's life than the father and that the mother was the parentmost likely to foster the other parent's relationship with thechild (see Matter of Diaz v. Vicente, 241 AD3d 1559, 1560;Matter of Steward v. Okon, 238 AD3d 1055, 1057). Moreover,the evidence elicited at the hearing showed that the fatherassaulted the mother in the presence of the child during anexchange of the child and that on other occasions, the fatherrefused to return the child to the mother at the end of hisscheduled parental access (see Matter of Diaz v. Vicente, 241AD3d at 1560–1561; Matter of Sookchan v. Sookchan, 234AD3d 779, 781).The father's contention that the Family Court relied on “falsefacts” that were not supported by the record is without merit.The only examples of purportedly “false facts” articulated bythe father are the court's finding that the father provided “littlesupport, financial or otherwise” for the child and the court's“reference to an assault and a writ for [the child's] return.”Contrary to the father's contention, however, those findingswere based upon testimony elicited at the hearing. The mothertestified at the hearing, among other things, that from the timethe child was born, the father did not provide financial support“consistently that can take care of the child.” For instance,the mother indicated that the father gave her only $25 for thechild's care in 2020. Moreover, the mother described in detailthe incident in which the father assaulted her in the presenceof the child on July 1, 2023, and testified that she had to obtaina writ for the return of the child in September 2023. The courtwas in the best position to evaluate the testimony elicitedat the hearing, and we perceive no basis on this record todisturb the court's credibility findings (see Matter of Calogerov. McMahon, 232 AD3d 894, 895).*6 Furthermore, the Family Court providently exercisedits discretion in setting the father's parental access schedule,which is supported by a sound and substantial basis in therecord (see Matter of Steward v. Okon, 238 AD3d at 1057–1058; Matter of Krubally v. Jobe, 161 AD3d 1076, 1077).
In the Matter of Kevin A. Julien, appellant, v. Danielle M. Arthur, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In..., ---N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 03308 WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.6The father's contention that the Family Court was biasedagainst him is unpreserved for appellate review. “A partyclaiming court bias must preserve an objection and move forthe court to recuse itself” (Matter of Baby Girl Z. [YaroslavaZ.], 140 AD3d 893, 894; see Matter of George A.C. [AnthonyC.], 223 AD3d 798, 800). “In any event, when a claim of biasis raised, the inquiry on appeal is limited to whether the court'sbias, if any, unjustly affected the result to the detriment of thecomplaining party” (Matter of George A.C. [Anthony C.], 223AD3d at 800 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter ofHossain v. Chowdhury, 238 AD3d 751, 753). Here, the recorddemonstrates that the court listened to the testimony, treatedthe parties fairly, and did not have a predetermined outcomeof the case in mind during the hearing (see Matter of Roman v.Deceus, 239 AD3d 751, 752; Matter of Perlman v. Kolodny,236 AD3d 1038, 1044).VI. ConclusionWe determine that the father should pay a sanction forfrivolous conduct pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1(c)(1) inthe sum of $250. We also determine that the Family Courtproperly granted the mother's petition for sole legal andresidential custody of the child with certain parental access tothe father.Accordingly, the motion is granted to the extent of directingthe father to pay a sanction in the sum of $250; within 20days after service of a copy of this opinion and order uponhim, the father shall deposit the sum of $250 with the Clerk ofthis Court for transmittal to the Commissioner of Taxation andFinance (see 22 NYCRR 130–1.3), and the order is affirmedinsofar as appealed from.DUFFY, J.P., LANDICINO and QUIRK, JJ., concur.Upon the order to show cause and the papers filed in responsethereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it isORDERED that the motion is granted to the extent ofdirecting the appellant to pay a sanction in the sum of $250;within 20 days after service of a copy of this opinion and orderupon him, the appellant shall deposit the sum of $250 withthe Clerk of this Court for transmittal to the Commissionerof Taxation and Finance (see 22 NYCRR 130–1.3); and it isfurther,ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealedfrom, without costs or disbursements.ENTER:Darrell M. JosephClerk of the CourtAll Citations--- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2026 WL 1476261, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op.03308End 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