Youssian <strong>v</strong>. Village of Kings Point

[[COURTLISTENER_SUBOPINION {"id":"11454286","type":"010combined","part":"opinion","author":"Carolyn Mazzu Genovesi","source_field":"html_with_citations"}]]
Youssian v Village of Kings Point
2026 NY Slip Op 26150
September 9, 2026
Supreme Court, Nassau County
Carolyn Mazzu Genovesi, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Eli Youssian, BOBBY ZARGARI, BABAK EBRAHIMZADEH, Petitioners,
v
Village of Kings Point, VILLAGE OF KINGS POINT PLANNING BOARD, 22 LIAM PROPERTIES LLC, 22 LIAM KINGS POINT LLC, Respondents.
Supreme Court, Nassau County
Decided on September 9, 2026
Index No. 609846/2026
For Petitioners:
Thomas Bizzaro, Esq.
23 Green St., Ste. 309
Huntington, NY 11743
631-380-3297
tbizzaro@tab-law.com
For Respondents:
Village of Kings Point
Village of Kings Point Planning Board
McLaughlin & Stern, LLC
1122 Franklin Ave., Ste. 300
Garden City, NY 11530
516-829-6900
mluccarelli@mclaughlinstern.com
For Respondents:
22 Liam Properties LLC
22 Liam Kings Point LLC
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
501 Rxr Plaza, Ste. 501e
Uniondale, NY 11556
516-629-9608
dan.baker@gtlaw.com
Carolyn Mazzu Genovesi, J.
[*1]
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 10, 12 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER).
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 44 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER).
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 65, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 91 were read on this motion to/for STRIKE PLEADINGS.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 70, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92 were read on this motion to/for STRIKE PLEADINGS.
Petition and amended petition brought pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR (MS #1 & #2), granting judgment, annulling, vacating, and setting aside the determinations by the Planning Board, directing respondents to produce documents pursuant to a FOIL request, granting a preliminary injunction pending the determination of this petition, or alternatively, remanding the matter for reconsideration, and awarding petitioners costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorney's fees is hereby dismissed. Application by respondents, 22 Liam Properties LLC and 22 Liam Kings Point LLC, (MS #3) for an order striking the petition and memorandum of law, dismissing the proceeding with prejudice, directing an evidentiary hearing, imposing sanctions upon counsel for petitioner, and awarding the respondents fees and costs, including attorneys' fees is granted. Application by respondents, Village of Kings Point and Village of Kings Point Planning Board, (MS #4) for an order scheduling an immediate evidentiary hearing, striking the petitioners' pleadings from the records, dismissing the proceeding in its entirety with prejudice, and awarding sanctions, including attorney's fees, is granted.
By way of background, petitioners commenced this Article 78 proceeding on May 8, 2026. The 64-page petition was accompanied by a 46-page memorandum of law in support. The action was brought on by an order to show cause which was filed on the same day. The sum and substance of the petition is as follows. Petitioners commenced the action to challenge the Village of Kings Point Planning Board's ("the Board") approval of a 10-lot subdivision. Petitioners argue that the Board relied on a void 2015 subdivision approval, that the Board violated the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") by issuing its decision despite evidence of negative impacts, and that the Board violated the Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") by denying petitioners key records prior to the hearing. The petition seeks,
inter alia
, to annul the final approval and direct the respondents to produce all FOIL records.
Unfortunately, shortly after commencement, issues regarding the contents of the petition and accompanying memorandum of law became the subject of litigation rather than the underlying merits. The short yet storied history of the case is as follows. On May 15, 2026, counsels for respondents informed counsel for petitioners, Thomas A. Bizzaro, Esq., that the petition and accompanying memorandum of law contained a myriad of false citations to legal authority using artificial intelligence ("AI"). A more detailed description of the hallucinated citations is contained
infra
. After discovering the AI errors, respondents requested that Mr. Bizzaro respond with an explanation and/or withdraw the petition; otherwise, they would notify
[*2]
the Court and seek sanctions, including striking the pleadings. Mr. Bizzaro responded to counsels with an eight-page letter, the sum and substance of which was a categorical denial. Mr. Bizzaro stated that his firm undertook a full citation audit in response to respondents' concerns. His firm identified seven issues which were minor citation and misapplication issues and did not involve fabricated authority. Mr. Bizzaro stressed that the errors were inadvertent and that opposing counsels failed to identify any specific erroneous citation. He rejected respondents' request that he withdraw the petition as well as any threat of sanctions. In fact, Mr. Bizzaro threatened to seek sanctions and attorney's fees himself, stating that the unfounded accusations by respondents violated Section 130-1.1 of the NY Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR"). The parties agreed to meet for a conference on May 18, 2026 at 3:30PM to discuss the matter. Prior to that meeting, Mr. Bizzaro filed a letter to the Court, explaining all of the foregoing and annexing the correspondence between the attorneys. In conclusion, Mr. Bizzaro requested a conference with the Court. Thereafter, the Court learned that the May 18, 2026 meeting between the attorneys was unsuccessful. On May 18, 2026 and May 19, 2026 respondents filed additional letters to the docket, which laid out the purported fraud contained in the petition.
On May 19, 2026, respondents requested that the Court hold an immediate conference regarding the issues raised in the letter correspondence because they needed to file opposition to the petition shortly thereafter, and were seeking guidance on how to proceed. The Court scheduled a conference the same day and made no determinations, but explained what the Court's remedies were if the allegations regarding the use of false information were true.
On May 21, 2026, Mr. Bizzaro filed an amended petition. A review of the 55 page petition reveals that it is essentially the same petition, which was filed upon commencement, less citation to the purported fraudulent legal authority as well as a few additional minor changes. On the same day, Mr. Bizzaro also filed a "stipulation of withdrawal" (which was solely signed by Mr. Bizzaro), withdrawing the order to show cause as well as another letter to the Court. The letter conceded for the first time that the original petition contained "AI-citation errors." Mr. Bizzaro informed the Court of the amended petition and withdrawal of the order to show cause. Finally, Mr. Bizzaro stated that he offered to reimburse respondents for their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in connection with the "letter exchanges and virtual conference."
On May 28, 2026, respondents each filed further letter correspondence with the Court. In sum and substance, the respondents demanded that Mr. Bizzaro withdraw the petition and pay attorneys' fees and costs. In response, Mr. Bizzaro offered to pay some attorney's fees but refused to withdraw the petition and informed the respondents he would be filing an amended petition and proceeding with the action. No agreement was reached between the parties. Respondents both informed the Court of their intention to file a motion to strike the pleadings and for sanctions. Mr. Bizzaro responded to the foregoing by filing correspondence on June 2, 2026. Petitioner's letter argues that there was no prejudice suffered as a result of the citation errors, that the amended petition was filed as a matter of right, and that his offer to reimburse respondents for fees and costs incurred in connection with the letter exchanges and the conference remains.
Thereafter, respondents filed separate orders to show cause (MS #3 and #4) to strike the pleadings, dismiss the petition and amended petition, and award sanctions, including attorney's fees. The matter was placed on this Court's calendar for a hearing on July 22, 2026. On July 22, 2026, the Court conducted a hearing on the record where petitioners, counsel for the petitioners
[*3]
and respondents were present.
FN1
At the hearing, Mr. Bizzaro conceded that the underlying commencement documents contained citations to "hallucinated" quotations. He explained that his firm, of which he is the sole principal, uses Lexis and Westlaw. The subscription to Westlaw contains certain AI tools which are linked to Microsoft Word. The program, "Spellbook AI," is a tool embedded into Microsoft Word. It was represented to Mr. Bizzaro that the AI-tool enhanced writing and detected drafting errors. He was informed that Spellbook AI did not provide legal authorities or citations to work product, but only enhanced drafting. Mr. Bizzaro reviewed the petition prior to commencement but did not "re-run a cite check," after accepting the changes made by Spellbook AI. Mr. Bizzaro was apologetic and explained the steps he and his office have taken to ensure this does not happen again. Mr. Bizzaro has discontinued his subscription to Spellbook AI and has changed his office policy so that he is the only individual permitted to use AI features. Additionally, Mr. Bizzaro informed the Court that he has registered with the National Academy of Continuing Legal Education for classes dealing with AI issues in the court system.
On these motions, respondents request sanctions, attorney's fees, and dismissal of the petition and amended petition with prejudice.
Monetary Sanctions
The Court will first address the issue of monetary sanctions. Initially, the Court emphasizes the seriousness of the matter before it. In the evolving legal landscape, the use of AI is all but unavoidable. When applied appropriately and responsibly, AI can be an effective tool which rapidly increases efficiency and accuracy. Unfortunately, the misuse of AI, specifically with respect to use of hallucinated legal citations, has emerged as a reoccurring problem which courts have had the burden to address (
see e.g.
Landberg v City of New York
,
2026 NY App Div LEXIS 4097
[2d Dept 2026];
Julien v Arthur
,
2026 NY App Div LEXIS 3503
[2d Dept 2026];
In re Zareh
,
250 NYS3d 534
[1st Dept 2026];
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v LeTennier
,
250 NYS3d 260
[3rd Dept 2026];
Mata v Avianca Airlines
, 678 F Supp3d 443 [SDNY 2023];
Ader v Ader
,
2025 NY Misc LEXIS 6434
[NY Sup Ct New York County 2025]).
The New York Rules of Professional Conduct explicitly prohibit attorneys from knowingly making statements of fact or law to a judge and using evidence that the attorney knows to be false (
see
Rules of Prof. Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 3.3[a][1];[2];[3]). Pursuant to NYCRR 130.1.1, the Court may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney who engages in frivolous conduct (
see
NYCCR 130-1.1[a]). NYCCR 130-1.1[d] provides that "an award of costs or the imposition of sanctions may be made either upon motion in compliance with CPLR 2214 or 2215 or upon the court's own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The form of the hearing shall depend upon the nature of the conduct and the circumstances of the case" (NYCRR 130-1.1[d]). The imposition of sanctions shall not exceed $10,000.00 for any single occurrence of frivolous conduct (
see
NYCCR 130-1.2).
Courts "have determined that reliance by an attorney or party on GenAI to draft legal memoranda containing GenAI hallucinations constitutes frivolous conduct warranting the imposition of sanctions" (
see
Julien
,
2026 NY App Div LEXIS 2503
at 7 citing
Fletcher v
[*4]
Experian Info Solutions, Inc.
,
168 F4th 231
[5th Cir 2026];
Amarsingh v Frontier Airlines, Inc.
, 2026 US App LEXIS 3928 [10th Cir 2026];
Lexos Media IP, LLC v Overstock.com
,
2026 WL 265581
[D Kan 2026];
Dubinin v Papazian
, 2025 U.S. Dist LEXIS 229362 [SD Fla 2025];
Mata
, 678 FSupp 3d at 466). Federal Courts in the Second Circuit have gone so far as to find that using "AI-generated hallucinations as valid caselaw
constitutes subjective bad faith
" (
see
Superb Motors Inc. v Deo
,
2026 US Dist LEXIS 95581
[EDNY 2026];
citing
McClellon v E. Rickard, Warden of FCI Otisville, No. 24-CV-10053 (VSB) (BSM)
,
2026 US Dist LEXIS 50381
[SDNY 2026]).
In this matter, petitioners included quotations from at least five otherwise legitimate cases which were either entirely fabricated, or which were altered from their original versions. Many of the cases ultimately contained holdings which had nothing to do with the propositions for which they were asserted (
see Astacio v Bratton
,
146 AD3d 613
[1st Dept 2017];
Chem Specialties Mfrs. Ass'n. v Jorling
, 85 NY2D [1995];
Douglaston Civic Ass'n, Inc. v Klein
,
51 NY2d 963
[1980];
Pell v Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck
,
34 NY2d 222
[1974];
Healy v Town of Hempstead Board of Appeals
,
61 Misc 3d 408
[NY Sup Ct Nassau County 2018]).
At the July 22, 2026 hearing, the Court underscored the seriousness of the issue and, after hearing from the parties, informed Mr. Bizzaro that his conduct would be punishable with monetary sanctions and attorney's fees.
The nationwide imposition of monetary sanctions in similar cases ranges from mere warnings to tens of thousands of dollars (
see Landberg
,
2026 NY App Div LEXIS 4097
[sanctioning plaintiff's counsel $8,000.00 and the law firm $2,500.00];
LeTennier
, 250 NYS3d at 269-270 [sanctioning defendant's counsel $7,500.00];
Cojom v Roblen, LLC
,
2025 US Dist LEXIS 225325
[D Conn 2025] [sanctioning plaintiff's counsel $500.00];
Lacey v State Farm Gen. Ins. Co.
,
2025 US Dist LEXIS 90370
[CD Cal 2025] [sanctioning plaintiff's collective law firms $31,100.00]). In determining the proper amount, courts "are both retributive, in that they punish past conduct, but are also 'goal oriented, in that they are useful in deterring future frivolous conduct not only by the particular parties, but also by the [b]ar at large'" (
LeTennier
, 250 NYS3d at 268).
This Court acknowledges that the petition and accompanying documents contained approximately five quotations from otherwise legitimate cases. The remainder of the cases and quotations cited to in the original petition and memorandum of law appear to be legitimate. Additionally, Mr. Bizzaro apologized at length to the Court and to his adversaries. He also explained how the error occurred and the steps he undertook to ensure it does not happen again. Notwithstanding, the Court also acknowledges that some of these quotes were entirely fabricated and purportedly stood for propositions entirely unrelated to the case cited. Importantly, when Mr. Bizzaro was confronted by counsel for respondents about the fabricated cases, he chose to essentially "double down" rather than to admit to the mistake. Mr. Bizzaro contends that he never denied the use of AI and his response was merely a "preliminary reply under extreme time constraints." The Court disagrees. The May 16, 2026 response from Mr. Bizzaro was a detailed eight-page letter where counsel argued that there were no fabricated, hallucinated, or erroneous quotations or citations identified by respondents, that he had undertaken a detailed review of all citations, and essentially only identified what he labeled "discrete errors." Mr. Bizzaro then demanded that respondents identify any inaccuracies and bring them to his attention. Mr. Bizzaro concluded by stating that the accusations levied and the threat of sanctions, absent any
[*5]
proof of wrongdoing, raised an issue of respondents' good faith and frivolous conduct which may warrant an application by him for sanctions and attorney's fees. The Court mentions the foregoing only to emphasize that Mr. Bizzaro's time would have been better spent combing his petition, which very well may have eliminated the need for his letter.
In any event, what ensued was months of back and forth between the parties, a "meet and confer" with all counsels, extensive letter practice to the Court, two court appearances, and a substantial amount of work undertaken by all parties. This could have been easily avoided had Mr. Bizzaro acknowledged the fabrications and approached the dispute with hat in hand. Indeed, as discussed
supra
, Mr. Bizzaro threatened to request sanctions upon the respondents when they broached the issue of these hallucinations. For this reason, the Court finds that Mr. Bizzaro's conduct was egregious and qualifies as a more significant violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct than it would otherwise. In its discretion and after a review of similar matters, the Court deems it appropriate to sanction Mr. Bizzaro in the sum of $5,000.00, to be paid to the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection of the State of New York.
Attorney's Fees
The next issue the Court must address is that of reasonable attorney's fees. Pursuant to NYCRR 130.1.1, the Court may order reasonable attorney's fees resulting from frivolous conduct in addition to or in lieu of financial sanctions (
see
NYCCR 130-1.1[a]).
While this matter was in its infancy when these issues arose, the attorneys have exerted significant effort in connection with the issues discussed here. Respondents identified the fabrications, the parties engaged in significant letter practice, which included considerable research, the parties appeared before the Court for a conference on May 19, 2026 and a hearing on July 22, 2026, the respondents filed their respective motions to dismiss the petition and amended petition, and the petitioners filed their opposition papers. Accordingly, it follows that the attorneys have incurred considerable legal fees. At the July 22, 2026 hearing, this Court informed the parties that it would be granting reasonable attorney's fees and directed respondents to file their legal invoices and accompanying affirmations.
Respondent 22 Liam Properties LLC submitted its affirmation and invoice which requests attorney's fees totaling $140,772.00 along with costs and disbursements in the sum of $833.72, for a total of $141,605.72 through July 31, 2026. Respondent, Village of Kings Point, submitted its affirmation and invoice which requests attorney's fees totaling $41,511.40 and costs and disbursements in the sum of $46.35, totaling $41,557.75 through August 3, 2026.
New York Courts have permitted awards of attorney's fees in similar circumstances, which typically also fall under the category of a sanction pursuant to NYCRR 130-1.1 (
see e.g. Cassata
, 250 NYS3d at 797;
Ader v Ader
,
2025 NY Misc LEXIS 7848
[NY Sup Ct New York County 2025];
Grymes Dev. Co. v Fodera
, 2026 NYLJ LEXIS 2543 [NY Sup Ct Richmond County 2025];
Augustin v Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc.
, 2025 NYLJ LEXIS 2430 [NY Sup Ct Kings County 2025];
Francois v Medina
,
2025 NY Misc LEXIS 23896
[NY Sup Ct Kings County 2025];
Jennie Enter. v Shvo
,
2024 NY Misc LEXIS 84449
[NY Sup Ct New York County 2024]).
Having found Mr. Bizzaro's conduct sanctionable (
see supra
), the Court finds that Mr. Bizzaro shall reimburse respondents' counsel for reasonable legal fees incurred as a result of,
inter alia
, preparing and filing various letters and motions involving the misuse of AI issue.
The issuance of attorney's fees in this matter is a sanction, therefore the sanction must be
[*6]
goal oriented (
see supra
), in that it is retributive and functions to deter future conduct (
see LeTennier
, 250 NYS3d at 268). The sum, if any, is ultimately left to the discretion of the trial court (
see Miller v Realty Assocs. v Amendola
,
51 AD3d 987
[2d Dept 2008]).
After a review of the invoices and entries provided by counsel for respondents, the Court concludes that the imposition of attorney's fees is appropriate but that said fees should be substantially reduced. Mr. Bizzaro shall pay respondent 22 Liam Properties LLC a sum of $8,000.00, representing attorney's fees and costs and disbursements. Mr. Bizzaro shall pay respondent Village of Kings Point a sum of $2,000.00 representing attorney's fees and costs and disbursements.
Application to Dismiss the Petition and Amended Petition
The last issue this Court must address is whether the petition and amended petition should be dismissed. Respondents argue that because the initial petition was tainted with frivolous citations, and because the amended petition is essentially a copy and paste of the initial petition, less the fraudulent citations, the amended petition must be stricken.
In opposition, Mr. Bizzaro argues that the citation errors do not warrant striking the petition or the amended petition since the issues were promptly corrected and there was no intent to defraud or mislead the Court. Mr. Bizzaro also argued at length that he was entitled to withdraw the original petition and file an amended petition as a matter of right under the CPLR (
see
CPLR 3025[a]).
"A party may amend his pleading once without leave of court within twenty days after its service, or any time before the period for responding to it expires, or within twenty days after service of a pleading responding to it" (
see
id.
). Here, the petition was filed on May 8, 2026. The respondents were served between May 13, 2026 and May 15, 2026. The amended petition was filed on May 21, 2026. To date, none of the respondents have interposed an answer. Accordingly, amendment as a matter of right would ordinarily be available.
Generally, the pleadings rule provides that an amended complaint supersedes the original (
see
Vanyo v Buffalo Police Benevolent Assn., Inc.
,
34 NY3d 1104
[2019]). The question is whether this principle should apply where the underlying petition is essentially permeated with fraud and petitioner seeks to amend solely to cure those defects. This Court's research reveals that this question, under these circumstances, has not been previously addressed. Specifically: can a petitioner amend his or her pleadings as a matter of right to correct defects in the underlying petition where the allegations contained therein were at least partially based upon hallucinated citations to legal authority? This Court concludes that the principle does not apply where the original pleading is permeated with fraud, and the fraud cannot simply be amended away.
The first question the Court should determine is whether the underlying petition was permeated with fraud. Here, the Court finds that it was. The pleadings did not simply contain random citations to bogus case law. Rather, they contained fabricated quotations which were relied upon and analyzed in support of the petitioner's requested relief. For example, the
Astacio
matter was fraudulently cited for the proposition that an agency cannot accept an applicant's face value assertion regarding environmental impacts under SEQRA and is required to use its own independent judgment (
see Astacio
,
146 AD3d at 613
). The petitioners went on to argue the specific merits of this case based upon the hallucinated authority from that legitimate case. This was similarly done with citations to the
Chem.
case (
see Chem. Specialties Mfrs. Ass'n. v Jorling
,
[*7]
85 NY2d at 382). Next, petitioners relied on
Douglaston
for the hallucinated proposition that a lapsed approval is a legal nullity, which was not what the Court of Appeals held (
see Douglaston Civic Ass'n, Inc. v Klein
, 51 NY2d at 963). Petitioners then improperly relied on that case for their arguments in support of the underlying merits of this action (
see id.
). Most egregiously, petitioners cited to
Pell
multiple times in support of the argument that a planning board's rejection of the engineer's conclusions without proffering a reasoned basis is essentially an independent and automatic grounds to establish an arbitrary and capricious determination (
see Matter of Pell
, 34 NY2d at 222). Petitioners used multiple bogus quotations from the case and submitted a lengthy argument in support based thereon. In actuality,
Pell
is a Court of Appeals case that dealt with the test for review of administrative penalties and whether a specific punishment was so disproportionate to a particular offense (
see id.
). The matter had nothing to do with planning boards or ordinances (
see id.
). Accordingly, after reviewing the cases and the original pleadings, the Court can only conclude that a significant portion of the legal arguments which formed the cornerstone for this specific proceeding were based upon fraudulent legal authority, such that the pleadings were permeated with fraud.
The next question the Court must determine is whether petitioners are entitled to amend the petition to remediate the defects. This Court finds that they are not.
In support of its application, respondents cite to,
inter alia
,
Cassata and Matter of Samuel
(
see Cassata v Michael Macrina Architect, P.C.
,
250 NYS3d 778
[NY Sup Ct Suffolk County 2026];
Matter of Samuel
,
82 Misc 3d 616
[Kings County Sur Ct 2024]).
Cassata
is a recent Suffolk County Supreme Court decision where defendant's counsel submitted opposition papers which contained fabricated quotations and misrepresented legal propositions by virtue of the use of AI (
see Cassata, P.C.
, 250 NYS3d at 781-782). The Court found the conduct sanctionable and rejected counsel's request for a "redo" of the papers (
see id.
at 782). Similarly, in
Matter of Samuel
, the Kings County Surrogate's Court found that the penalty for committing fraud upon the court in the misuse of AI included striking the offending party's pleading from the record (
see Matter of Samuel
, 82 Misc 3d at 620).
There are several other cases that address the same or similar issue. In
Kruse
, the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal for a pro-se litigant's misuse of AI (
see Kruse v Karlen
,
692 SW3d 43
[2024]). In
Stephen-McCarthy, PA
, the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals declined to consider the portion of petitioner's brief that contained fabricated summaries of DEA adjudications (
see Stephen McCarthy, P.A. v United States DEA
, 2025 US App LEXIS 18013 [3rd Cir 2025]). In
Grant
, the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck the appellants' brief and dismissed the appeal for the use of hallucinated cases (
see Grant v City of Long Beach
,
96 F4th 1255
[9th Cir 2024]). In
Mata
, the Southern District of New York acknowledged that it was entitled to strike the "offending paper," but chose not to (
see Mata
, 678 FSupp at 465).
Aside from striking the amended petition as a sanction, the Court finds that permitting the petitioners to "amend away" the fraud here would be an improvident exercise of discretion for two reasons. The first reason is that the fraud and the pleadings are inseparable. This is not a matter where a party merely cited to a few fictitious cases. Rather, a significant foundation of this Article 78 proceeding was premised on the reliance of hallucinated quotations and bogus legal authority. Moreover, the amended petition is essentially a replica of the original petition, less the hallucinated quotations. The amended petition includes assertions premised upon the fabricated legal authority. Second, public policy bars the amended petition from standing.
[*8]
Permitting the amendment would effectively reward careless legal drafting, and allow litigants to include false, misleading, and inaccurate allegations in their pleadings with the expectation that they could simply correct the defects through an amendment. As an aside, this Court also gives credence to the respondents' argument that permitting the amendment would require the respondents and the Court to essentially "Frankenstein" the 55-page petition to determine which allegations are based in legitimate law and which are not. This is an undue burden that the Court refuses to impose.
Accordingly, for these reasons, the Court determines that striking the petition and the amended petition is the proper remedy. The Court declines to dismiss the petition with prejudice, as this dismissal does not constitute a determination on the merits.
Signature Verification
In light of the foregoing, the Court need not reach the issue of the assertion that the signatures contained in the amended verified petition were falsely notarized. Briefly, the original verified petition includes a signature of petitioner Bobby Zargari, which was notarized by Mr. Bizzaro's legal assistant on May 8, 2026. The amended verified petition dated May 20, 2026 is also signed by Zargari and notarized by Mr. Bizzaro's legal assistant. A side-by-side review of the signatures reveals that they appear to be identical, and at the hearing petitioner admitted to reusing the original signature. Under ordinary circumstances, the Court would have set this matter down for a hearing on this specific issue. However, after reviewing the papers and addressing the matter on the record, the Court declines to render a decision on the issue of fraud regarding the notarization in light of its determination to issue sanctions and strike the petition and amended petition.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, Thomas A. Bizzaro, Esq. is directed to pay a sanction in the sum of $5,000.00, to be paid to the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection of the State of New York; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent 22 Liam Properties LLC is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees for the legal work performed in the sum of $8,000.00; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent Village of Kings Point is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees for the legal work performed in the sum of $2,000.00; and it is further
ORDERED that Mr. Bizzaro shall tender payment for the foregoing reasonable attorney's fees to the offices for the respective counsel for respondents within one hundred eighty (180) days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry; and it is further
ORDERED that the verified petition and accompanying memorandum of law filed on May 8, 2026 are hereby stricken; and it is further
ORDERED that the amended petition filed on May 21, 2026 is hereby stricken; and it is further
ORDERED that the action is hereby dismissed. Respondents may enter judgment accordingly.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
E N T E R
Date:
Hon. Carolyn Mazzu Genovesi
Footnotes
Footnote 1
Of note, at the hearing there were allegations which were not before the Court, but which involved the misuse of AI in the papers in the related administrative proceeding.