Artificial Intelligence (“AI”)  made legal and mainstream news in 2023.  In a highly publicized and widely discussed case, Mata v. Avianca, Inc., the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sanctioned attorneys for citing to non-existent, fake cases generated by Open AI’s ChatGPT.  Despite Mata’s stark warning to the bar, AI-generated fake caselaw continues to appear in litigation nationwide.  

In Matter of Samuel, the Kings County Surrogate’s Court confronted a lawyer’s careless use of AI in a contested probate proceeding.  The objectant’s counsel submitted “fake caselaw resulting from Artificial Intelligence hallucinations” in reply papers submitted on a summary judgment motion.  Five of the six cases cited in in the objectant’s reply papers were either erroneous or non-existent.  The court held that counsel violated the rule against “frivolous” litigation under 12 NYCRR 130-1.1 by making material misstatements to the Court concerning case law.

Surrogate Graham was careful to point out that AI is not, in and of itself, the problem.  While the court was “dubious” about attorneys using AI to prepare legal documents, it focused squarely on counsel’s failure to examine and scrutinize the ostensible authorities that AI cited in support of the objectant’s arguments.  The court found that counsel had sufficient time to review and analyze the AI generated reply papers and conduct a simple cite check on reliable legal search engines, which would have revealed AI’s reliance on non-existent, fake caselaw.  Counsel’s conduct, and not AI, was the real problem. 

Continue Reading Matter of Samuel – Artificial Intelligence Hallucinates and an Incapacitated Person Makes a Will

For trust and estate litigators, the federal court experience invariably begins – and sometimes ends — with an analysis of the probate exception to federal diversity jurisdiction.  Two recent Southern District cases examine the probate exception.  Part 1 of this blog series introduces the probate exception and discusses an “easy” case; Woitovichv. Schoenfeld.  Part 2 of this series, coming soon (hopefully), examines the tougher case of Bulgariv. Bulgari. 

Continue Reading The Probate Exception to Federal Jurisdiction – From Woitovich (Part 1) to Bulgari (Part 2)

A discovery proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103 may be commenced by any legal representative of the estate, including a preliminary executor or a temporary administrator. Ed Baker provides an overview of these proceedings in our latest post.
Continue Reading SCPA 2103 Proceedings – A Fiduciary’s Right to Commence a Licensed Fishing Expedition

The recent opinion by the Appellate Division, Third Department, in In re Strom Irrevocable Trust III, 2022 NY Slip Op 01356, provides a cautionary tale to estate litigators who conduct SCPA 1404 examinations in the face of a trust instrument’s in terrorem clause. While in terrorem clauses are strictly construed, the Appellate Division found that the subject clause had been triggered as a result of conduct engaged in by the respondent during the course of a probate proceeding regarding the grantor’s will. Ilene S. Cooper discusses the decision in our latest post.
Continue Reading Third Department Examines In Terrorem Clause

While the removal of a fiduciary has long been the subject of Surrogate’s Court opinions, it is not often that the Appellate Division weighs in on the issue. However, in Matter of Epstein, the Second Department did just that, and issued an opinion that serves as an important guidepost for the kind of conduct that warrants removal. Ilene Cooper discusses the decision in our latest post. …
Continue Reading Appellate Division Addresses the Removal of a Fiduciary

Some of the most interesting estate litigation issues arise in proceedings to determine a surviving spouse’s entitlement to an elective share, particularly when there are claims of abandonment. Bret Cahn discusses certain abandonment decisions and the evidentiary issues raised therein, in our latest post.
Continue Reading THE CHALLENGE OF FINDING ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN ABANDONMENT PROCEEDINGS

Courts greatly appreciate when parties settle their disputes by agreement.  Settlements alleviate the courts of the burden of overwhelming caseloads, and further the public policy of encouraging parties to order their affairs by contract rather than relying on statute and common law.  As the Surrogate’s Court recently reiterated in Matter of Eckert, “stipulations of…

From April 7, 2020 to June 25, 2021, New York Executive Order 202.14 authorized “the remote execution of wills” in New York State. Recently, in Matter of Holmgren, Queens County Surrogate Peter J. Kelly wrote a decision addressing the information that a self-proving affidavit must contain in order to prove the validity of a remotely executed will. Robert Harper writes about the decision in our latest post.
Continue Reading SURROGATE’S COURT PROVIDES GUIDANCE ON PROVING THE VALIDITY OF A REMOTELY WITNESSED WILL

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced litigants to wrestle with the dilemma of waiting for a jury trial or moving forward more expeditiously by way of a bench trial.  Recently, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, and the Court of Appeals passed on the issue of undue influence arising out of a Surrogate’s Court bench trial. Frank Santoro discusses the decisions in our latest post.
Continue Reading The Court of Appeals Takes a Look at an Undue Influence Claim from a Non-Jury Trial

When clients ask whether they can “sue for legal fees,” the courts continue to reiterate that the answer is almost always no; that the American Rule still controls.  In our latest post, Frank Santoro discusses recent decisions in the contexts of trusts and estates litigation and guardianship litigation that speak to fee shifting and exceptions to the American Rule. …
Continue Reading The Answer is Almost Always No