Ader v. Ader

Pamela B. Ader, as executor of the estate of Richard H. Ader v. Jason Ader, JS Property Holdings LLC, Index No. 653917/2024, Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, decision and order dated October 1, 2025 (Justice Joel M. Cohen). Copy of primary document: `files/sources/D-91-ader-v-ader.pdf`.

Defendants' counsel, Michael William Charles Fourte of the Law Offices of Michael Fourte, included an AI-hallucinated citation and quotations in a summary judgment brief, then included multiple new AI-hallucinated citations and quotations in the brief opposing the sanctions motion. At oral argument he conceded he "did use AI," claiming he verified it but "must have missed" the hallucinations, while his written opposition denied using "unvetted AI" at all.

The court granted the sanctions motion under 22 NYCRR section 130-1.1 and RPC Rule 3.3 (duty of candor). Defendants and their counsel are jointly and severally liable to compensate plaintiff for her reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in connection with the sanctions motion, plus the fees attributable to addressing the AI citations in the summary judgment motion (amount to be fixed on fee application). The court also directed plaintiff's counsel to submit the decision to the Grievance Committee for the Appellate Division, First Department and the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics, and provided a copy to the judge presiding over a related matrimonial matter involving the same defense counsel.

Verify every citation in every filing, including opposition papers, not just the original brief. Be consistent and candid with the court about AI use; contradictory denials aggravated the outcome here. Do not delegate verification to inadequately supervised colleagues or staff.