A recent New York court decision, as featured in the New York Law Journal, serves as an important reminder: legal advocacy requires more than simply recycling prior filings. Whether representing plaintiffs or defendants, attorneys have an obligation to ensure that every submission to the court accurately reflects the facts and evidence of the specific case before them. See Ferreras v. Chowdhury, 2026 NY Slip Op 50784(U) (Sup. Ct., Kings County May 24, 2026).

In Ferreras v. Chowdhury, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Aaron Maslow criticized a defense attorney affirmation filed in support of a serious injury threshold summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of an automobile accident case. According to the court, the affirmation appeared to contain language copied from other cases, including references to medical evidence that did not exist in the case at hand, as well as recurring typographical errors.

The court noted that while attorneys may appropriately rely on established legal arguments and principles of law, factual assertions must always be individualized. As Justice Maslow observed, legal principles may remain the same from case to case, but facts do not.

Among other issues, the affirmation reportedly contained contradictory statements regarding the plaintiff’s time missed from work and references to radiological findings that had never been performed. Although the case ultimately settled and sanctions were not imposed, the court emphasized the dangers of relying too heavily on boilerplate factual submissions.

A lesson from Ferreras v. Chowdhury is that courts expect accuracy, attorneys owe a duty of candor, and every case deserves individualized attention. Careful review remains essential to ensuring that legal decisions are based on the actual facts of the case – not language copied from another file.

Salvatore R. Marino, Esq.