Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Anderson v. Akam Associates, Inc.
SC New York · Oct 27, 2025
NY / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationscontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Matter of Oppenheimer v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 457 [1st Dept 1993]'; the Court reviewed and confirmed no such case exists and that the intended case did not support plaintiff's proposition. Outcome: Upcoming Sanctions.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Matter of Oppenheimer v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 457 [1st Dept 1993]'; the Court reviewed and confirmed no such case exists and that the intended case did not support plaintiff's proposition.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in SC New York, with the listed outcome: Upcoming Sanctions.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Matter of Oppenheimer v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 457 [1st Dept 1993]'; the Court reviewed and confirmed no such case exists and that the intended case did not support plaintiff's proposition. Outcome: Upcoming Sanctions.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in SC New York, with the listed outcome: Upcoming Sanctions.
Record details
New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
CourtSC New York
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateOct 27, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeUpcoming Sanctions
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Upcoming Sanctions
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Matter of Oppenheimer v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 457 [1st Dept 1993]'; the Court reviewed and confirmed no such case exists and that the intended case did not support plaintiff's proposition.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Anderson v. Akam Associates, Inc.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Matter of Oppenheimer v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 457 [1st Dept 1993]'; the Court reviewed and confirmed no such case exists and that the intended case did not support plaintiff's proposition. Outcome: Upcoming Sanctions.
- Why does Anderson v. Akam Associates, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in SC New York, with the listed outcome: Upcoming Sanctions.
- What does the public record establish about Anderson v. Akam Associates, Inc.?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Anderson v. Akam Associates, Inc. summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.