The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →A federal judge did not dismiss an entire lawsuit over artificial intelligence. On February 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla sanctioned attorney Steven A. Feldman and entered default judgment against his client, Affable Avenue LLC, after repeated false legal citations and quotations appeared in filings. The court’s ruling centered on counsel’s failure to read and verify authorities—not a blanket ban on lawyers using AI.
What the judge decided
In Flycatcher Corp. Ltd. and Flycatcher Toys, Inc. v. Affable Avenue LLC et al., No. 24 Civ. 9429 (KPF), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York imposed sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and its inherent powers. Judge Failla struck docket entries 153 through 156 and directed entry of judgment for the plaintiffs against Affable Avenue LLC. The court left damages for a later determination, after the remaining defendants’ claims are resolved. Read the February 5, 2026 opinion and order.
The decision did not end the action against every defendant. Flycatcher Corp. Ltd. and Flycatcher Toys, Inc. had sued multiple merchants over alleged sales of stolen goods, asserting trademark infringement, unfair competition, and related claims. Those allegations are not findings that every defendant engaged in wrongdoing. The Third Amended Complaint provides the allegations and case background.
What went wrong with the citations
Feldman filed a motion-to-dismiss brief for Affable Avenue in June 2025. The order recounts that opposing counsel identified at least 13 cases cited in that brief that did not exist, as well as eight existing cases whose quoted language could not be found in them. Keep those initial counts distinct from the judge’s later discussion of the broader episode, which referred to 14 nonexistent cases among 60 cited cases. The opinion describes the citation problems; it does not make those figures interchangeable.
#1 Best Overall
The problems continued after the court intervened. Feldman’s response to an order to show cause included another false citation, and a later proposed reply brief again contained a false case citation. The court also considered his failure to correct the problems despite warnings.
What the court said about AI—and what it did not say
At an August 22, 2025 sanctions conference, Feldman testified that he had written every word of the filings and had used AI tools to review or cross-check citations. He also acknowledged that he had not verified cases by reading them. The judge found his explanations inconsistent and unpersuasive, and described parts of his account of the drafting process as extremely difficult to believe. The transcript records the exchange; the court’s findings are in its opinion. Read the sanctions-conference transcript.
The order concluded that Feldman misused AI in preparing filings by submitting nonexistent citations and misattributed quotations without proper verification. But the court did not categorically prohibit AI-assisted legal research or writing. It expressly distinguished using technology from meeting the lawyer’s existing professional obligations. Judge Failla wrote: “Most lawyers simply call this ‘conducting legal research.’ All lawyers must know how to do it. Mr. Feldman is not excused from this professional obligation by dint of using emerging technology.”
The opinion discusses Google Scholar, vLex, NotebookLM, and Westlaw in recounting the research history. It does not certify any of those services as reliable or compare their accuracy. The ruling’s practical point is that using a research tool does not replace checking the authorities that will be cited to a court.
Why the judge found the conduct sanctionable
Rule 11 requires lawyers to make reasonable inquiries before submitting court papers. Citing Second Circuit precedent, the court stated: “At the very least, the duties imposed by Rule 11 require that attorneys read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity, of the legal authorities on which they rely.” The opinion attributes that passage to Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 615 (2d Cir. 2024).
Feldman’s explanations about time pressure and access to research did not excuse filing unverified cases. The court’s reasoning was straightforward: if a lawyer cannot verify an authority, the lawyer should not cite it. The judge also found that even accepting Feldman’s account of how he drafted the documents, submitting cases without reading them violated Rule 11.
The order treated a case-ending sanction as severe and weighed the circumstances, including bad faith, prejudice, repeated conduct, when corrections were made, and the likelihood of recurrence. On this record, the judge found default judgment against Affable Avenue warranted. That is a case-specific ruling, not a rule that any AI-related citation error—or every inaccurate citation—automatically results in default.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What happens next
The order deferred assessment of damages against Affable Avenue until the remaining defendants’ matter is resolved. It also allowed Joel MacMull 30 days to submit an application for attorney fees. The ruling therefore imposed a significant consequence on one defendant while leaving those follow-on matters open.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallOutdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchBest Value
Why this case matters beyond the courtroom
For lawyers, the lesson is procedural rather than technological: research assistance does not transfer responsibility for a filing away from the attorney who signs and submits it. The sequence also mattered here—false authorities appeared more than once, including after the court had raised the issue.
For readers following AI-related sanctions, this case should not be treated as evidence of how often AI-generated citations appear in legal filings. The available record describes one case, not a general prevalence rate. The opinion’s significance lies in how the court applied Rule 11 and its inherent authority to repeated, unverified citations and the lawyer’s conduct after warnings.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
