Youssian v. Village of Kings Point

What happened

Youssian v. Village of Kings Point is an Article 78 proceeding (a New York special proceeding to review a determination of a government body) commenced on May 8 by three residents challenging the village planning board's approval of a 10-lot subdivision. The 64-page petition came with a 46-page memorandum of law, both filed by petitioners' counsel, Thomas A. Bizzaro, the sole principal of his firm.

On May 15, counsel for the respondents told him the papers contained false citations produced with artificial intelligence. He answered the next day with an eight-page letter that denied any fabricated authority, described a citation audit that found seven minor issues, and warned that he might seek sanctions against the respondents himself. On May 21 he filed a 55-page amended petition, which the court later described as essentially the same document less the challenged citations, together with a letter conceding for the first time "AI-citation errors."

At a hearing on July 22, counsel conceded that the original Youssian papers contained hallucinated quotations. He explained that his Westlaw subscription included AI tools linked to Microsoft Word, among them Spellbook AI, which he had been told improved drafting and did not supply authorities. According to the decision, he reviewed the petition before filing but did not "re-run a cite check" after accepting the tool's changes. He said he had cancelled the subscription, limited AI features in his office to himself, and registered for continuing legal education on AI.

What the court did

Justice Carolyn Mazzu Genovesi found that the Youssian papers quoted at least five legitimate cases with language that was fabricated or altered, and that several were cited for propositions unrelated to their holdings. The decision names Astacio v. Bratton, Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association v. Jorling, Douglaston Civic Association v. Klein, Pell v. Board of Education and Healy v. Town of Hempstead Board of Appeals. It singles out Pell, a Court of Appeals decision on review of administrative penalties, which the petition quoted repeatedly on planning board review.

The court weighed counsel's apology and remedial steps against his first response. It wrote that he chose to "double down" rather than admit the mistake, and that months of letters, a meet and confer, and two court appearances followed. The orders entered in the decision and order were:

• a $5,000 sanction on counsel under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, payable to the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection within 30 days;
• $8,000 in fees and costs to 22 Liam Properties LLC, which had requested $141,605.72;
• $2,000 to the Village of Kings Point, which had requested $41,557.75;
• the petition, memorandum of law and amended petition struck, and the proceeding dismissed.

On the amendment question, the court found the original pleading "permeated with fraud" and declined to let the defects be amended away, because the amended petition still rested on assertions premised on the fabricated authority. It declined to dismiss with prejudice, stating that the dismissal is not a determination on the merits. It did not reach a separate dispute over a reused signature on the amended verification.

Where it stands

The Youssian decision and order is dated September 9 and published as 2026 NY Slip Op 26150 under Index No. 609846/2026, uncorrected and subject to revision before the Official Reports. The fee awards are payable within 180 days of service with notice of entry. No notice of appeal, payment record or disciplinary referral was located as of October 30, and the decision itself orders no referral. Because the dismissal was not on the merits, whether the residents have refiled is also unknown.

The decision cites Mata v. Avianca and Fletcher v. Experian among the authorities treating hallucinated citations as sanctionable conduct.

The obligation it engaged

Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, is the clause Youssian engages most directly. The quotations entered the petition on a system's authority after a tool described as a drafting aid altered the text, and no one confirmed them against the reported decisions. The failure was one of order. The cite check, if any, preceded the last machine edit rather than following it.

Clause 4, checkability before adoption, describes the remedy: every accepted change is output to be checked before it is adopted, whatever a vendor says the tool does. Clause 7, contemporaneous record, explains the cost of the first response. A log showing which tool touched the document, and when, would have let counsel answer the May 15 letter accurately within a day.

For an expert witness the lesson of Youssian transfers directly. A report revised with an embedded writing assistant needs its quotations and figures re-verified against the sources after the final edit, and the assistant's use should be recorded as it happens.

Sources

• Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County (copy hosted by the AI Hallucination Cases database, Damien Charlotin) · September 9, 2026
  Youssian v. Village of Kings Point, 2026 NY Slip Op 26150, Decision and Order

What could not be confirmed

The text reviewed carries a Justia-style header labeling the court as N.Y. Civil Court, while the decision itself identifies Supreme Court, Nassau County; the decision's own caption is followed here. The official New York Law Reporting Bureau page for 2026 NY Slip Op 26150 could not be opened. Any notice of appeal, payment of the sanction or fees, disciplinary referral, or refiling of the petition was not located as of October 30, 2026.