There has been a lot of back and forth about AI mistakes in case citation, and overly unreasonable reliance on AI in guiding legal arguments. We think that Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v Kaloidis 2026 NY Slip Op 31557(U) April 13, 2026 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 502644/25 Judge: Heela D. Capell is the most forceful example of this that we have (ever) seen. The Decision is so long that we can present only snippets. Definitely read through the footnotes to see the fake citations and fabricated call logs that surface.

“Upon the foregoing papers, Kleyman Law Group, P.C. (“Plaintiff’ or “KLG”) moves, in motion (mot.) sequence (seq.) 1, for an order pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(l), (a)(2), and (b) dismissing James Kaloidis, as Executor of the Estate of George Kaloidis’ (“Defendant”) affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Plaintiff moves, in mot. seq. 2, for an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1, awarding it sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $20,000 for allegedly filing an alleged frivolous ethics complaint against Plaintiffs principal attorney, Alex I. Kleyman (“Mr. Kleyman”) and for filing an answer in the instant action which contained alleged frivolous counterclaims and affirmative defenses. Plaintiff further moves for attorney’s fees in the amount of $50,000 for the time it spent defending against the alleged frivolous filings. Plaintiff moves, in mot. seq. 3, for an order, pursuant to CPLR 6201(1), 6201(3), and 6212(a) granting a prejudgment attachment of Defendant’s full ownership interest in Sheepshead Restaurant Associates, Inc. (“SRA”), granting a prejudgment attachment of all proceeds received or to be received by Defendant from the sale of the SRA property, authorizing Plaintiff to file a lien or security interest and to restrain transfer, concealment, or dissipation of all proceeds from the sale of the SRA property, directing Defendant to disclose all entities, accounts, contracts, and distributions related to the SRA property sale, directing Defendant, within 10 days of service of the court’s order, to disclose under oath a complete list of all assets, corporate interests, and proceeds held by Defendant, and requiring Plaintiff to post an undertaking in an amount fixed by the court. 1 Plaintiff also moves, in mot. seq. 4, for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting it summary judgment under its breach of contract claim and awarding it $1,246,000.00 in damages along with contractual interest at the rate of 18% per year on unpaid balances or, alternatively prejudgment interest at the 9% statutory rate. Defendant cross-moves, in mot. seq. 5, for an order sanctioning Plaintiff/Mr. Kleyman for the filing of an alleged frivolous motion for sanctions and for citing to fictitious cases and/or misrepresenting the holdings of cases in its legal papers (i.e., mot. seq. 2). Plaintiff moves, in mot. seq. 6, for an order continuing the temporary restraints which preclude Defendant from transferring, encumbering, dissipating or otherwise disposing of $2,000,000 of any proceeds received from the pending sale of SRA property or its 50% membership interest therein during the pendency of this action and pending the resolution of mot. seq. 3. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks an order directing that no less than $2 million in net proceeds from the pending sale of SRA property be deposited and maintained in a segregated, interest-bearing IOLA or escrow account under the control of Defendant’s attorney or a neutral third-party escrow agent. Plaintiff further moves for an order waiving the undertaking requirement under CPLR 6312(b) in light of Plaintiffs
demonstrated financial hardship.”

“In summary, the court rules as follows: (1) Plaintiffs motion, in mot. seq. 1, for an order, pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(l), (a)(2), and (b), dismissing Defendant’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims is denied. Plaintiffs motion, in mot. seq. 2, for an order awarding sanctions and attorney’s fees against Defendant is denied. Plaintiffs motion, in mot. seq. 3, for an order, pursuant to CPLR 6201(1), 6201(3), and 6212(a), granting prejudgment attachment and directing various discovery and disclosure is denied.
Plaintiffs motion, in mot. seq. 4, which seeks summary judgment under its breach of
contract claim and summary judgment dismissing Defendant’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims is granted only to the extent that Defendant’s first, second, and fourth counterclaims are dismissed and the motion is otherwise denied. Plaintiffs motion, in mot. seq. 6, which seeks injunctive relief is denied and the temporary restraining order in the court’s June 12, 2025 order is vacated. Defendant’s cross motion, in mot. seq. 5, which seeks sanctions against Plaintiff/Mr. Kleyman is granted and this matter is set down for a hearing before the Court on June 9, 2026 at 10:00 A.M., at which time the amount of sanctions, as well as whether referral of Mr. Kleyman to the AGC is warranted, will be determined.”