Henry v. Long Island University

What happened

In Henry v. Long Island University, No. 2:25-cv-04618, a former employee sued the university under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII. The university moved to dismiss, and the plaintiff's counsel filed an opposition brief.

After opposing counsel flagged problems, the plaintiff's lawyers filed a letter on January 8, 2026 correcting several citations, describing them as citation errors that were typographical in nature, and stating that they had verified the rest of the brief. The court found the letter understated the problem. One Westlaw citation corresponded to testimony before a Senate agriculture committee. Another case was presented as a Second Circuit decision when it was a Tenth Circuit opinion that had been withdrawn and superseded. A third "plainly does not exist"; its Westlaw number belonged to a declaration filed in another district.

The letter promised a comprehensive review and prompt notice of any further errors. The opinion records that "in the almost nine months since, no additional filings were made," and lists more: cases the court could not confirm exist and quotations not found in the decisions cited. The opinion also notes that the opposition brief was unsigned.

What the court did

On September 14, 2026, Judge Sanket J. Bulsara granted the motion to dismiss, with leave to amend the age discrimination claims by October 14, 2026. On the briefing he wrote: "Instead of taking accountability for what appears to be counsel's reliance on artificial intelligence, counsel brushes off these misrepresentations to the Court as simple 'citation errors,' 'typographical' in nature."

Because the plaintiff had since discharged his lawyers, the court declined "to impose any monetary or other punishment at this time." It imposed one requirement instead: "for the next two years counsel affiliated with the filings containing fake cases—Karen Lynn Mizrahi and Brett R. Leitner—must file a copy of this opinion in any case filed in the Eastern District of New York in which they make an appearance."

Where it stands

The case continues on any amended complaint. The two-year filing requirement runs from the opinion. No appeal or further sanction was located as of October 8, 2026.

Henry v. LIU reaches the problem by disclosure rather than penalty. Every judge in the district who sees the two lawyers appear will receive the opinion. That is a notice obligation, similar in kind to the client and court notifications ordered in Lnu v. Blanche, applied here in place of a fine.

The obligation it engaged

Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, is engaged by each citation. Clause 8, disclosure, is engaged by what came after. The correction letter told the court that the remaining citations had been verified, and the court's own review showed they had not. A statement about verification is itself a representation that has to be true.

An expert who corrects one error in a report and certifies that the rest has been checked is making the same kind of statement. The record of that check, under Clause 7, is what allows the certification to be defended.

Sources

• U.S. District Court, E.D.N.Y. (copy hosted for the AI Hallucination Cases database) · September 14, 2026
  Memorandum and Order (ECF 32)

What could not be confirmed

Counsel did not admit AI use; the court's statement is that the errors appear to reflect reliance on AI. No press coverage was located.