Keefe v. BMakin Film Ltd (Jan. 5, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
Kings County Julia KEEFE v. BMAKIN FILM LTD
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
New York (NY)
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Decided
Jan. 5, 2025
Disposition
Motion Denied
Keefe v. BMakin Film Ltd, 2026 WL 1164759 (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 1164759 (N.Y.Sup.), 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 31794(U) (Trial Order)Supreme Court of New York.Kings County**1 Julia KEEFE, Plaintiff,v.BMAKIN FILM LTD, Ben Makinen, Defendants.No. 525621/2025.April 24, 2026.*1 Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citation references that are incorrect or do notactually exist. These invalid citations appeared in the original court opinion and have been preserved aswritten since they are part of the official record. Any links to these invalid citations have been removed.At an IAS Term, Part 18 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Held in and for the County ofKings, at the Courthouse Thereof at 360 Adams St., Brooklyn, New York on the 20th Day of April 2026Motion Seq: 2Decision/OrderPresent: Hon. Gina Abadi, J.S.C.Recitation, as required by CPLR § 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion:Papers NYSCEF Numbered Notice of Motion/Cross Motion/Order to Show Cause and Affidavits(Affirmations) Annexed............................................................................ 22-33, 47-50 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations)......................................................... 37, 52-54 Reply Affidavits (Affirmations)............................................................... 38 Other.......................................................................................................... _______________ Upon the foregoing cited papers and after oral argument, the Decision/Order on this motion is as follows:Defendant Ben Makinen (hereinafter “Makinen”) moves (MS #2), pursuant to CPLR § 5015(a)(1) and 22 NYCRR 202.27 tovacate the default entered by order dated January 5, 2025, and upon vacatur, restoring his underlying motion to dismiss (MS#1), and granting him leave to appear remotely.Plaintiff commenced this action by the filing a Summons and Complaint on July 30, 2025. Plaintiff, who is of NativeAmerican heritage, alleged that Makinen and his production company, defendant BMakin Film LTD (hereinafter “BMakinFilm), deliberately and wrongfully **2 appropriated her image, likeness, and name in connection with the release of hisdocumentary film. Makinen and BMakin Film were allegedly served on August 21 and August 26, 2025, respectively. OnSeptember 26, 2025, Makinen uploaded a “Notice of Appearance and Demand for Service of Papers (Pro Se)” in whichhe indicated that that he “shall” accept all electronic filings via NYSCEF, requesting his address of record be modified and
Keefe v. BMakin Film Ltd, 2026 WL 1164759 (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2demanding that all copies of papers filed in this action also be served upon him in Bali, Indonesia. On that same date, plaintiffserved the Summons and Complaint via NYSCEF and uploaded an affirmation of service reflecting such.On October 1, 2025, Makinen uploaded a letter addressed to Honorable Nancy Sunshine, Kings County Clerk, requesting anextension of time to answer on behalf of BMakin Film. Makinen subsequently filed a Request for Judicial Intervention andmoved to dismiss this action against himself only, seeking dismissal pursuant to CPLR §§ 3211(a)(1), (7), and (11) on theground that the defamation claim failed to satisfy the heightened pleading requirements imposed by New York's Anti-SLAPPstatute. Alternatively, he requested dismissal based upon CPLR § 327(a) on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Pursuantto this Court's Part Rules and a separate Notice which was uploaded via NYSCEF to this action, the Court requires in personoral argument on all motions and scheduled such for January 5, 2026. Following the filing of his motion, Makinen submitted a“Table of Authorities” listing ten cases purportedly supporting his arguments, however, he did not request permission to appearremotely. Opposition was filed and the motion was denied on January 5, 2026, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, due to defendantmovant's failure to appear for oral argument. On January 10, 2026, Makinen made the instant motion to vacate his default inappearance, to restore MS #1, and to appear remotely.*2 Oral argument on the present motion was conducted remotely on February 26, 2026. In preparation, the Court reviewedMakinen's submission, including a “Memorandum of Law,” **3 which seemed to be AI generated and contained severalinaccurate statements. Movant asserts that “courts consistently recognize that a pro se litigant's misunderstanding of local motionpractice--particularly when compounded by geographic distance--constitutes a reasonable and excusable default,” citing EugeneDi Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., Inc., 67 NY2d 138, 142 (1986). However, that case involves only corporate entitiesand contains no individual parties, rather, it discusses whether a trial court abused its discretion in granting a motion to vacatea judgment.1In review of the underlying motion (MS #1), the Court notes the movant's papers are riddled with AI generated argumentsand incorrect citations.2 Makinen cites “Clark v. Velsiplast Corp., 88 A.D.2d 859 (1st Dep't 1982)” and quotes from said case,alleging that it stands for the proposition that his release is binding. However, the citation is incorrect, it is for People v Ford,88 AD2d 859 (1st Dept 1982) and does not stand for the proposition alleged. Moreover, the quote does not appear anywherein said case, as represented to the Court. Makinen also cites “Shah v. Levy, 56 A.D.3d 574 (2d Dep't 2008),” but again, saidcitation is for a different action that has nothing to do with the proposition Makinen alleges. Makinen cites Klapper v Graziano,41 Misc 3d 401, 410 (Sup Ct 2013), and allegedly quotes from said case by stating that releases “are enforceable and are not tobe lightly set aside.” However, said quote appears nowhere in the case. Makinen cites many phantom cases along with phantomquotes, which are too lengthy to repeat.On February 26, 2026, all parties appeared remotely for oral argument on MS #2. Makinen appeared and the Court questionedhim with respect to his AI generated papers. He stated that he did nothing wrong since he was just trying to “participate in thelegal process” and by generating **4 such papers he was just “putting his best foot forward.” Moreover, he states that thequotes contained in his moving papers should be treated as if he copied them directly from a legal book. In opposition, plaintiffclaimed a pattern of harassment fueled by AI generated documents. Plaintiff claims that the AI generated “gobbly gook” hasbeen a pattern and that defendant has been acting in bad faith.Pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 (a), “the court, in its discretion, may award to any party or attorney in any civil action orproceeding before the court, except where prohibited by law, costs in the form of reimbursement for actual expenses reasonablyincurred and reasonable attorney's fees, resulting from frivolous conduct as defined in this Part. In addition to or in lieu ofawarding costs, the court, in its discretion may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action orproceeding who engages in frivolous conduct as defined in this Part, which shall be payable as provided in section 130-1.3 ofthis Part.” Under 22 NYCRR § 130-1.2, “the court may award costs or impose sanctions or both only upon a written decisionsetting forth the conduct on which the award or imposition is based, the reasons why the court found the conduct to be frivolous,and the reasons why the court found the amount awarded or imposed to be appropriate. An award of costs or the imposition of
Keefe v. BMakin Film Ltd, 2026 WL 1164759 (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3sanctions or both shall be entered as a judgment of the court. In no event shall the amount of sanctions imposed exceed $10,000for any single occurrence of frivolous conduct.”*3 Submissions that rely on non-existent cases generated by artificial intelligence, resulting in AI “hallucinations” andcases that do not stand for the propositions alleged, are considered “frivolous conduct” under 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 and aresanctionable. See Will of Samuel, 82 Misc 3d 616, 621 (Sur Ct 2024). A party's pro se status does not excuse such conduct.**5 It is clear and undisputed that Makinen used Artificial Intelligence to create the documents relied upon in his motions.Moreover, it is undisputed that these papers contained AI hallucinations and made material misrepresentations to the Court.The Court finds his argument that he is pro se and simply putting his best foot forward to be disingenuous. At oral argument,the Court noted that there are hundreds of pro se litigants that appear in this Court without relying on AI generated documentsand memorandums. The Court pointed out that Makinen had the option to simply state his arguments in an affidavit insteadof submitting memorandums of law with fictitious quotes and citations. This conduct not only wasted this Court's time andresources but also caused plaintiff and her attorney to incur unnecessary time and expense.Having found Makinen's conduct to be frivolous, the Court concludes that while sanctions are appropriate, the Court will firsthereby issue a warning to Makinen against the use of AI generated papers that contain fictitious quotes and citations. If Makinensubmits further AI generated documents in violation of this Court's warning, plaintiff will be awarded monetary sanctions.Finally, defendant's motion to vacate is denied as the Court will not consider Makinen's motion papers based on fictitiousauthority.The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court.ENTER:<<signature>>Hon. Gina AbadiJ.S.C.Footnotes1The Court notes that the word “per se” appears in the decision several times, but never the word pro se.2Movant attempted to withdraw MS#1 after a decision was rendered and after oral argument was heard on MS#2 and this Court findsthat Makinen was aware of his various misrepresentations.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