SAMANTHA ROUSSELL v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON ETC (2026)

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record, we affirm on the merits without discussion. We write, however, to address our concerns with the purported legal authority upon which the appellant relied in her brief. The appellant cited thirteen different cases that do not exist. We expressly disregard these hallucinated cases. Furthermore, the appellant cited nine different cases that do exist, but do not stand for the proposition described by the appellant. A party, whether represented by counsel or proceeding pro se, is responsible for the content of any submission to the court. If a party chooses to use artificial intelligence to assist in the preparation of a brief, it must do so with care and take steps to ensure the accuracy of any submissions to the court. “While we decline to do so here, this court has the authority to sanction appellant under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a) for failure to comply with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(c).” Friend v. Serpa, 425 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (citing Goya v. Hayashida, 418 So. 3d 652, 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)).

Affirmed.

Per Curiam.

Levine, Conner and Shaw, JJ., concur.