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
HomeCasesAvalon Holdings Corp. v. Guy Gentile
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

Avalon Holdings Corp. v. Guy Gentile

S.D. New York · Jan 22, 2026

NY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotescontractWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a formal warning to the pro se defendant regarding his obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure after he submitted a fictitious case citation and quotation, which the court attributed to the potential use of generative artificial intelligence.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Gentile cited a non-existent Second Circuit opinion and attributed a quotation to it; the court could not locate any such opinion or the quoted language and concluded the citation was fictitious, possibly produced by generative AI.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In a civil enforcement action, the defendant, appearing pro se, submitted objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Within these objections, the defendant cited a non-existent Second Circuit opinion, 'In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr., N.Y., 53 F.4th 76 (2d Cir. 2022),' and attributed a quotation to it. The District Court determined that the citation was fictitious and likely the product of generative artificial intelligence. Citing Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reminded the defendant of the obligation to verify the existence and validity of all legal authorities. The court issued a formal warning that future filings containing fictitious citations or non-compliant representations may result in sanctions, including monetary penalties or the striking of filings.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtS.D. New York
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateJan 22, 2026
GE
AI toolgenerative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court issued a formal warning to the defendant regarding future compliance with Rule 11 and the accuracy of legal citations.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court suggested the fictitious citation was likely the result of using generative AI.

Procedural posture

The court was reviewing objections filed by the defendant to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation concerning a motion to clarify a judgment and a motion to reinstate a civil arrest warrant.

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 | Gentile cited a non-existent Second Circuit opinion and attributed a quotation to it; the court could not locate any such opinion or the quoted language and concluded the citation was fictitious, possibly produced by generative AI.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Avalon Holdings Corp. v. Guy Gentile?
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se defendant regarding his obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure after he submitted a fictitious case citation and quotation, which the court attributed to the potential use of generative artificial intelligence.
Why does Avalon Holdings Corp. v. Guy Gentile matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Avalon Holdings Corp. v. Guy Gentile?
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 Avalon Holdings Corp. v. Guy Gentile 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.

Sana Hazina Butler v. Fidelity Management & Research Company LLCS.D. New York · Apr 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsFecteau v. Safety National Casualty CorporationS.D. New York · Mar 25, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsSaregama India Ltd. v. B.A., et al.S.D. New York · Dec 3, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsTameer Peak v. Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, et al.S.D. New York · Nov 26, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsHabib Miah v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC, et al.S.D. New York · Oct 11, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsRomero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USAS.D. New York · Jun 25, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations