Ader v Ader
Ader v Ader is one matter in the Veritas record of US court proceedings involving AI-generated citations that could not be verified against the reporters named. The summary below is drawn from the underlying court document, linked at the foot of this page.
- Court
- Sup. Ct. N.Y., N.Y. County
- Date
- October 1, 2025
- Party
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- Not identified in the order
- Outcome
- Sanctions granted: joint-and-several costs/fees award (to be calculated); referral to grievance committees
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty in this order.
What the record shows
The court granted Plaintiff's motion for sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, finding that defense counsel included an AI-hallucinated citation and quotations in the summary judgment brief and then added multiple new AI-hallucinated citations and quotations in the brief opposing sanctions; at oral argument counsel ultimately conceded using AI. Defendants and counsel were held jointly and severally liable for Plaintiff's reasonable costs and fees, to be quantified on a forthcoming application, and counsel was directed to submit the order to the First Department Grievance Committee and the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics.
This entry reflects the court document as filed. The citations at issue could not be located in the reporters named at the time of the order. The reading here is descriptive of the public record and is not legal advice.
Source documents
The test this filing did not run
Every matter in this record shares one mechanism: a citation that did not resolve to an opinion in the reporter named, in a brief that was filed before any verification step ran. Veritas runs that step. The Filing Risk Scanner extracts each citation, resolves it against reporter and public-record sources, and returns a verdict on each one — located, partial, or not located in reporter — before the brief is signed.
Run a free reviewBack to the full tracker →