HomeCasesAugustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc.

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.

Corpus matter record

Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc.

SC New York · Jul 16, 2025

NY / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityemployment

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants re-cited the nonexistent 'Graziano' in Point III-F and submitted Exhibit M stating a contradictory 'Graziano' holding; court confirmed no such case exists. Outcome: Defendants ordered to comply with AI rules; potential financial sanctions pending hearing..

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Defendants ordered to comply with AI rules; potential financial sanctions pending hearing.; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Defendants ordered to comply with AI rules; potential financial sanctions pending hearing. in SC New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Defendants ordered to comply with AI rules; potential financial sanctions pending hearing. in SC New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtSC New York

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateJul 16, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeDefendants ordered to comply with AI rules; potential financial sanctions pending hearing.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Defendants ordered to comply with AI rules; potential financial sanctions pending hearing.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants re-cited the nonexistent 'Graziano' in Point III-F and submitted Exhibit M stating a contradictory 'Graziano' holding; court confirmed no such case exists.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Bellefonte misused to argue that a manager's control undermines employer liability; the case actually addressed summary judgment on alleged fraudulent inducement.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Y.A. v Conair mischaracterized as addressing time-barred claims; it actually concerns denial of leave to amend an answer.
Fabricated: Case Law | Only 'Perez' cited with no identifying details; court could not locate any such case and questioned whether it exists.
Fabricated: Case Law | Nonexistent 'Graziano v. County of Nassau' cited to support 'Discovery cannot resuscitate claims'; the citation 202 AD3d 707, 708 actually corresponds to People v Devore (a criminal case), and no Graziano case exists.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants re-cited the nonexistent 'Graziano' in Point III-F and submitted Exhibit M stating a contradictory 'Graziano' holding; court confirmed no such case exists. Outcome: Defendants ordered to comply with AI rules; potential financial sanctions pending hearing..
Why does Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Defendants ordered to comply with AI rules; potential financial sanctions pending hearing. in SC New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc.?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn 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.

Wheat v. VichieSC New York · Nov 3, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Keefe v. BMakin Film LtdSC New York · Apr 24, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Ellen Michaelis v. Wilmington Savings Fund SocietySC New York · Apr 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Kevin Krzeminski v. Janine McQuillanSC New York · Jul 6, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Sharei Torah v. HendelSC New York · Jun 1, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. STI-NY, LLCSC New York · May 28, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtSC New York

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateJul 16, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeDefendants ordered to comply with AI rules; potential financial sanctions pending hearing.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants re-cited the nonexistent 'Graziano' in Point III-F and submitted Exhibit M stating a contradictory 'Graziano' holding; court confirmed no such case exists.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Bellefonte misused to argue that a manager's control undermines employer liability; the case actually addressed summary judgment on alleged fraudulent inducement.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Y.A. v Conair mischaracterized as addressing time-barred claims; it actually concerns denial of leave to amend an answer.

Fabricated: Case Law | Only 'Perez' cited with no identifying details; court could not locate any such case and questioned whether it exists.

Fabricated: Case Law | Nonexistent 'Graziano v. County of Nassau' cited to support 'Discovery cannot resuscitate claims'; the citation 202 AD3d 707, 708 actually corresponds to People v Devore (a criminal case), and no Graziano case exists.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc.?

Why does Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc. matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn Inc.?

Which source supports this Augustin v. Formula 3 Brooklyn 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.