AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesAnderson v. Akam Associates, Inc.
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Anderson v. Akam Associates, Inc.

SC New York · Oct 27, 2025

NY / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationscontracttrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court granted the defendants' motion to enforce a settlement agreement and ordered a hearing to determine the appropriate sanctions against the plaintiff, an attorney, for citing a non-existent case in her opposition papers.

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

In a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, the pro se plaintiff, an attorney, cited 'Matter of Oppenheimer v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 457 [1st Dept 1993]' to argue the court lacked jurisdiction. The court confirmed this citation does not exist and that the actual case the plaintiff likely intended to cite, 'Oppenheimer v. City of New York, 193 A.D.3d 957 [2d Dept 2021]', does not support the plaintiff's legal proposition. Finding the plaintiff presented a non-existent case and argument, the court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the settlement and ordered a hearing to determine the appropriate sanctions against the plaintiff for the submission of fabricated legal authority.

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
Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtSC New York
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateOct 27, 2025
UN
AI toolunspecified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court granted the motion to enforce the settlement and ordered a hearing to determine the appropriate sanctions against the plaintiff.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court noted the citation was likely generated by AI tools used by counsel.

Procedural posture

Trial court order granting defendants' motions to seal and to enforce a settlement agreement, while scheduling a future hearing to determine sanctions and attorneys' fees.

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.

  1. 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.?
The court granted the defendants' motion to enforce a settlement agreement and ordered a hearing to determine the appropriate sanctions against the plaintiff, an attorney, for citing a non-existent case in her opposition papers.
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.

Brown v. Real Estate Capital of America et al.SC New York · Aug 7, 2026same court · fake citations + contractSharei Torah v. HendelSC New York · Jun 1, 2026same court · fake citations + contractDrip Capital, Inc. v. SGM Socher Inc.SC New York · May 1, 2026same court · fake citations + contractKleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James KaloidisSC New York · Apr 3, 2026same court · fake citations + contractHilpert v. 16 Judge SPV LLCSC New York · Dec 4, 2025same court · fake citations + contractMorris Gafni v. Rapid Foreclosure Refunds et al.SC New York · Nov 21, 2025same court · fake citations + contract