The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.
Docket entry 161, 10 March 2026 · source · PDF · 28 pages
Docket text. OPINION AND ORDER re: 98 FIRST MOTION for Sanctions PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 11. filed by Tyrone Blackburn, Terrance Dixon, T.A. Blackburn Law PLLC, 45 SECOND MOTION to Dismiss Case as Frivolous . filed by Tyrone Blackburn, Terrance Dixon, T.A. Blackburn Law PLLC. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's third claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress without leave to amend. The Court denies the remainder of Defendants' motion to dismiss and request for fees pursuant to N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 70-a. Defendants' motion for sanctions is DENIED. Plaintiff's request for fees related to that motion is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close the open motions at Dkt. 45 and Dkt. 98. (And as further set forth herein.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Rochon on 3/10/2026) (jca) (Entered: 03/10/2026)
10 I. Hallucinated Cases Before this Court begins its analysis, it must address Blackburn’s pervasive citations to non-existent authority in his briefing in support of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. As Plaintiff points out, Defendants’ brief contains several fake authorities and misrepresentations of the law.
96-1. Thus, the Court is not only concerned with Blackburn’s submission of hallucinated cases and misstatements of the law in his brief, but also with his misrepresentations to the Court regarding the source of his research. Sanctions may be imposed for submitting false or nonexistent legal authority to the Court.
Feb. 5, 2026) (sanctioning attorney that submitted documents containing fake cases and misattributed quotes hallucinated by AI); Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F.
2023) (same). Alternatively, the Court may refer an attorney to the Grievance Committee for filing such non-existent authority. See, e.g., Park v.
Id. at *4. Most relevant to the conduct here, on June 26, 2025, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ordered Blackburn to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for submitting fabricated cases and misrepresentations in two briefs that he filed, see Memorandum Order at 7-8, Jakes v. Youngblood, No.
71 at 5. Additionally, on September 15, 2025, Justice Rosado of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ordered Blackburn to submit an affirmation in a New York state court action to explain “why his motions papers repeatedly cite to cases that do not exist and/or stand for legal propositions that are discussed nowhere in the cited decisions.” Dkt. 57, Ex.
After the order to show cause was issued by the Pennsylvania court, and after Blackburn asserts that he completed continuing legal education courses between July 18, 2025 to August 7, 2025 “to better understand the implications of artificial intelligence in legal drafting,” Dkt. 58 at 3-4, he continued to include hallucinated cases in his brief in this case, which was filed on August 11, 2025, see Mot. Blackburn’s representation that he used a LexisNexis tool that LexisNexis refutes he had access to, Dkt.
Docket entry 57, 18 September 2025 · source · PDF · 48 pages
Docket text. RESPONSE to Defendants' First Reply Memorandum of Law (ECF Nos. 56-1, 56-3, and 56-4). Document filed by Joseph Cartagena, Joseph Antonio Cartagena. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Decision + Order on Motion), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Notice of Blackburn's Undisclosed Prior Issues with Fake Citations Generated by AI)).(Siev, Jordan) (Entered: 09/18/2025)
No. 38], she relies in this new filing on case law that does not exist. As an example, on page 4 of her recent filing, plaintiff cites James v.
Plaintiff’s counsel therefore submits this Notice for the Court’s consideration. 3 The fake and nonexistent cases noted by Judge Rosado in her decision exist in Mr. Blackburn’s filings dated April 1, 2025 (NYSCEF 38) and April 24, 2025 (NYSCEF 47).
It is also respectfully requested that plaintiff’s cross -motion be denied. It is rich in irony that plaintiff’s counsel seeks sanctions against the law firm, and a referral of the undersigned for discipline, for the audacity of seeking dismissal of the am ended complaint herein, by continuing to misrepresent documented facts, and relying on fictitious case law, that simply does not exist.1 STATEMENT OF FACTS Background The law firm represented Monique Facey in the matter of Facey v. City of New York, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under docket no.
15) However, there is no case in New York (that can be found by Lexis or Google search) with the caption Xiong v. Knight, and the cite plaintiff assigns to such fictitious case actually belongs to Burgher v. AF 111 Props.
Fisher, and form the basis for an award of sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a). The law firm has been forced to incur the expense of this motion (in addition to the expense of the application to Judge Caproni and defending against the identical allegations before the Grievance Committee ), which expenses were compounded by having to respond to outright misrepresentations of fact and (nonexistent) case law. It must be noted that an attempt to persuade a Co urt or o ppose an adversary by relying on non -existent precedent has be en held to constitute “an abuse of the adversary system” warranting sanctions.
In any event, the motion to dismiss is based on the undisputed documentary evidence filed in support of same, and the longstanding law of New York with respect to claims for legal malpractice. Moreover, it must be reiterated that plaintiff’s argument that she is trying to protect the integrity of the judicial system is completely at odds with her presentation to this Court of case law that does not exist, in support of her efforts to convince the Court to ignore well - established legal precedent. B.
No. 38], she relies in this new filing on case law that does not exist. As an example, on page 4 of her recent filing, plaintiff cites James v.
Moreover, counsel for Plaintiff is directed to, within five days, submit an affirmation advising the Court whether he used artificial intelligence applications and/or chatbots to write his motion papers. He must also explain why his motion papers repeatedly cite to cases that do not exist and/or stand for legal propositions that are discussed nowhere in the cited decisions. L Background Defendants formerly represented Plaintiff in a sexual harassment lawsuit against NewYork City, which settled for $150,000 in September of 2024 (NYSCEF Doc.
Docket entry 53, 5 September 2025 · source · PDF · 34 pages
Docket text. MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 45 SECOND MOTION to Dismiss Case as Frivolous . Plaintiff Joseph Cartagena's Memorandum of Law in Opposition. Document filed by Joseph Cartagena..(Siev, Jordan) (Entered: 09/05/2025)
8 I. The Court Should Disregard Much, If Not All, of Defendants’ Motion, and Should Sanction Defendants For Relying On Hallucinated Cases ................. 8 A.
9 B. The Court Should Disregard Defendants’ Brief and Sanction Blackburn For Misrepresenting and Fabricating Legal Authority .... 10 II.
There are at least ten instances in the Motion where Defendants cite cases for inapposite propositions or quotes language found nowhere in the case, commonly referred to as “hallucinate d” case citations, which, in all likelihood, were the result of Blackburn’s irresponsible reliance on artificial intelligence (“AI”) generated content without manual verification.
As shocking as this is coming from Blackburn, a licensed member of the bar, it is not surprising to one familiar with his history. Federal judges have admonished Blackburn within the past year because his filings were “replete wi th inaccurate statements of law” and “wholly fabricated quotations from cas elaw.” Blackburn recently bl amed these errors on his “misinterpretation” of new “legal technology,” and represented, just days after filing his Motion, that he had taken the appropriate steps to ensure that he would “never” make the same errors again. The Motion is, unfortunately, just the latest example of Blackburn’s serial disregard of his ethical obligations.
Despite its lack of coherenc e, Defendants appear to advance several arguments in support of dismissal, including cla ims of litigation privilege , assertions that the challenged statements are protected opinion or truth, and repeated contentions that the Complaint fails to plead actual malice. The Court should disr egard much, if not all, of Defendants’ Motion, which relies on hallucinated cases and “evidence” outside the four corners of the Complaint. And, in any event, Defendants’ arguments are baseless.
I. The Court Should Disregard Much, If Not All, of Defendants’ Motion, and Should Sanction Defendants For Relying On Hallucinated Cases Defendants’ Motion is not only unreliable, it is a shameless abuse of the judicial process that the Court should flatly reject. First, the Court may not consider th e extraneous materials Defendants improperly inject through Dixon’s sel f-serving declaration that is inadmissible on a 9 Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
First, the Court may not consider th e extraneous materials Defendants improperly inject through Dixon’s sel f-serving declaration that is inadmissible on a 9 Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Second, Defend ants’ submission is tainted by their repeated reliance on fabricated citations, a practice for which Blackburn has already been publicly cautioned against and Blackburn promised to end, to no avail. A.
B. The Court Should Disregard Defendants’ Brief and Sanction Blackburn For Misrepresenting and Fabricating Legal Authority Defendants’ Motion is replete with misrepresen tations and fabrications of legal authority clearly generated by AI. “[C]ourts in this Circuit have not hesitated to find that the submission of fabricated legal authority resulting from the use of artificial intelligence is sanctionable conduct.” Gurpreet Kaur v.