PC 59 v. The Jewish Board of Family and Children's Services, Inc., Defendant. (2026)

On October 23, 2026, this Court issued a decision and order on motion sequence no 2 (NYSCEF Doc 71). The decision raised what appeared to be the inappropriate use of Artificial Intelligence by Yanique L. Burke, Esq. in the underlying motion papers. The decision provided in pertinent part:

As noted in the section above addressing the Social Service Law, Defense counsel falsely asserts that assertion that Social Services Law § 413 does not create a private right of action. This is expressly contradicted by the language of the statute and Appellate Division case law. Additionally, Defense counsel misrepresents the holding of the Court of Appeals in Pelaez v Seide in addition to attributing a quotation to that case that appears nowhere in the decision.

The inference drawn by the Court is that these submissions were the result of improper use of AI. Moreover, the Court notes that although Defense counsel acknowledged other factual misrepresentations in her submissions (NYSCEF Doc # 68) she did not take that opportunity to correct these issues. Based on the foregoing, Ms. Burke is directed to make a written submission, by sworn statement, explaining to the Court how she came to include such materials in her submission. Said written explanation should be filed on NYSCEF and a courtesy copy emailed to the Court within 10 days of the date of this decision.

In compliance with the Court's order Ms. Burke filed an affirmation on October 27, 2026,

which acknowledged that she used "an artificial intelligence tool" in preparing the papers and failed to verify the information generated by said tool leading to the false quotation and improper legal assertions in the underlying papers. In short, counsel acknowledges the impropriety, apologizes for her conduct and avers that she will do better in the future.

The Court appreciates the candor in counsel's submission, but notes that "(w)hether in New York State court, federal court, or state courts around the country, the courts all provide the same conclusion, a court filing of nonexistent decisions, nonexistent quotations, and/or propositions of law that are not supported by cases cited, is frivolous, unethical, and sanctionable conduct." Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C., 89 Misc 3d 865, 873 (NY Sup. Ct. 2026).

Use of AI is not the problem per se. The problem arises when attorneys abdicate their responsibility to ensure their factual and legal representations to the Court—even if originally sourced from AI—are accurate. "The court relies on attorneys to do their jobs: advocate for their clients using law and facts—real law and real facts" (Enterprise v Shvo, NYSCEF 154 in Index No. 653221/2024 [Sup Ct, NY County, Dec. 24, 2024] [Masley, J.]). When attorneys fail to check their work—whether AI-generated or not—they prejudice their clients and do a disservice to the Court and the profession. In sum, counsel's duty of candor to the Court cannot be delegated to a software program.

Ader v. Ader, 87 Misc 3d 1213(A) (NY Sup. 2025).

"The misuse of AI technology also implicates [a] lawyer's ethical duty to provide independent professional judgment in rendering legal services. Undoubtedly, lawyers are selected and hired by the public for their judgment and counsel" (Grymes Dev. Co. v. Fodera, 88 Misc 3d 767, 772, 245 N.Y.S.3d 863 [Sup. Ct., Richmond County] ).

The Court may award sanctions for frivolous conduct against a party and/or an attorney in its discretion where appropriate (22 NYCRR § 130-1.1). Moreover, Rule 3.3 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct ("Conduct Before a Tribunal") provides that a lawyer "shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal[.]" (NY ST RPC Rule 3.3). Finally, 22 NYCRR § 100.3(D)(2) provides that "[a] judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a substantial violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 1200) shall take appropriate action."

Ader v. Ader, 87 Misc 3d 1213(A) (NY Sup. 2025).

Given that counsel acknowledged her violations and took responsibility for the conduct, and that this appears to be the first time counsel has undertaken such conduct the Court finds that a $250.00 sanction is appropriate and sufficient to both punish for this instance and deter such conduct in the future.

WHEREFORE it is hereby:

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Yanique L. Burke, Esq. shall pay a $250.00 fine payable to the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection, 119 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York 12210, within ten (10) business days of the date of this Order and file proof of payment to NYSCEF within fifteen (15) days; and it is further

ORDERED that Yanique L. Burke, Esq. shall serve a copy of this Order upon the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection, 119 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York 12210, within five (5) business days of the date of this Order and file the Affidavit of Service to NYSCEF within ten (10) business days.

This constitutes the order of the Court.

DATE: 10/28/2026

SABRINA KRAUS, JSC

Sabrina Kraus, J.