As my colleague, Serene Carino, recently blogged, the Commercial Division Advisory Council has proposed a rule requiring accurate pinpoint citations in all Commercial Division filings, a reform designed to ensure that “[t]he reader should never be left guessing where the referenced authority resides.” A recent decision from Queens Commercial Division Justice Leonard Livote is a case study in why citation integrity matters and why the proposed mandatory pinpoint citation rule would make fabrication harder to attempt and easier to catch.
Background
In December 2025, one of the defendants filed a Notice of Removal, asserting that an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding had automatically removed the action to federal court. The filing referenced a “Standing Order” and an alleged bankruptcy petition, neither of which was included as an exhibit to the filing. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff moved for a default judgment and sanctions against the defendants. The opposition filed by one defendant became the centerpiece of Justice Livote’s decision.
Analysis
In its decision, the Court identified multiple instances in defendant’s papers that cited nonexistent cases, misstated actual holdings, and provided nonexistent pinpoint citations. For example, defendant argued that pro se litigants are entitled to greater latitude and attributed that proposition to Traguth v Zuck, 710 F2d 90, 94 [2d Cir 1983]). However, the Court found no such holding in Traguth and instead cited contrary authority holding that pro se litigants have no greater rights than litigants represented by counsel.
Next, defendant cited to a Third Department case for the proposition that “[c]ourts routinely grant pro se litigants additional time to prepare responsive papers…” However, upon review, the Court found the case did not exist, and the citation provided belonged to another Third Department case involving the affirmation of a criminal conviction.
The same problem occurred with a real case, where defendant cited to City of Waco, Tex. v U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., (293 US 140, 143, [1934]), for the proposition that state court proceedings conducted after removal are “void.” But the Court found the actual holding at the cited page said no such thing. Adding insult to injury, the Court found defendant had selectively truncated a quotation from Plaintiff’s counsel, dropping a conditional clause, to make it appear as if Plaintiff had conceded that removal of the action was proper.
Justice Livote’s analysis rested on two independent grounds. First, the Court found fraud on the court by clear and convincing evidence, holding that defendant’s repeated false submissions meant he had “forfeited the right to have [his] claim decided on the merits.” The Court struck defendant’s amended answer and entered a default.
Second, under 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1(c), the Court found the submissions to be independently frivolous acts done without merit to prolong the resolution of the action and ordered defendant to reimburse Plaintiff’s legal fees. Notably, Justice Livote observed that the citation errors “appear to be exemplary of the result of using artificial intelligence-based tools to draft legal documents,” although defendant denied using artificial intelligence.
Upshot:
It is worth noting that the Westlaw copy of this decision includes the following Editor’s Note: “This document contains discussion of unverified citations, likely generated by AI tools used by a party or counsel. These citations are not attributable to the Court. The unverified citations have been preserved as part of the official record, but links are unavailable,” a notation I have encountered for the first time in practice.
That said, the message is clear. The Commercial Division Advisory Council’s proposed pinpoint citation rule would formalize what Sharei Torah already enforces: that every citation must be verifiable, and that the burden of verification falls on the party, not the court. Whether or not the proposed rule is adopted, Sharei Torah makes the stakes plain: cite accurately and precisely, or face consequences far beyond merely losing a motion.