Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee v. Jean LeTennier, Also Known as Jean Michel LeTennier and Jean M. LeTennier

Summary

The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed orders arising from a mortgage foreclosure action, including the denial of defendant Jean LeTennier’s motion to vacate and orders restricting his future applications. The court deemed challenges to certain orders abandoned and rejected renewed challenges to the plaintiff’s standing. It also held that the submission of fabricated legal authorities and misrepresentations involving generative artificial intelligence constituted frivolous conduct, imposing monetary sanctions of $7,500 on defense counsel and $2,500 on LeTennier.

Holdings

1. Defendant was not entitled to vacatur based on newly discovered evidence or alleged fraud because he failed to show that the evidence could not have been discovered earlier through due diligence, and his fraud allegations were conclusory and unsupported.
2. Defendant abandoned his appeals from the August 2024 and September 2024 orders by failing to raise any challenge to those orders in his initial brief.
3. Submitting fabricated legal authorities is frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(1) and may warrant monetary sanctions, even when the fabricated citations allegedly state accurate legal principles.
4. Use of generative artificial intelligence to assist in preparing court submissions is not prohibited, but attorneys and litigants remain obligated to apply human oversight and fact-check and cite-check every filing; failure to do so may be sanctionable depending on the circumstances.
5. The appeal was frivolous and warranted sanctions of $2,500 against defense counsel and $2,500 against defendant, in addition to the $5,000 sanction imposed on defense counsel for fabricated authorities.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion under CPLR 5015 based on alleged newly discovered evidence, fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct.
2. Whether defendant's appeals from the August 2024 and September 2024 orders were abandoned because he failed to challenge those orders in his initial appellate brief.
3. Whether submitting fabricated legal authorities and misrepresenting legal authorities constituted frivolous conduct subject to sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.
4. Whether the appeal itself was frivolous and warranted additional sanctions against defendant and his counsel.
5. Whether attorneys and litigants may use generative artificial intelligence in preparing court submissions and what verification obligations accompany that use.

Disposition

affirmed