Which source supports this Corst v. Mushailov 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.

HomeCasesCorst v. Mushailov

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

Corst v. Mushailov

CC New York · Jan 15, 2026

NY / state Editorial impact: low fake citations misrepresented authority contract trial None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court identified multiple fabricated and misrepresented case citations in the plaintiff's filings, which it attributed to the use of an AI program. Counsel apologized to the court, admitting to a failure to properly review the submissions. The court disregarded the defective legal arguments and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Citation “Matter of Knapp v Knapp, 225 AD2d 1010 (4th Dept 1996)” could not be located under that name and instead led to a different matter (Orange Steel Erectors v Newburgh Steel Products Inc.); court found it defective/unverified. || Fabricated: Case Law | Citation “Matter of Negron v St. Charles Hosp. & Rehab. Ctr., 121 AD3d 1427 (2d Dept 2014)” led to a different matter (People v Rojas) and did not support counsel's argument; court could not find the cited matter. || Fabricated: Case Law | Citation “Matter of Polizzi v Polizzi, 226 AD2d 581 (2d Dept 1996)” did not correspond to that matter and led to a different case (Epes v Healey); court found it defective/unverified. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation “Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Estwick, 160 AD3d 911 (2d Dept 2018)” exists but the opinion does not support the proposition asserted by counsel; misrepresentation of precedent.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in CC New York, with the listed outcome: Apology from Counsel.

Why this matter is tracked

In a civil action for rent arrears, the court identified multiple fabricated and misrepresented case citations in the plaintiff's affirmation. The court determined that several cited cases either did not exist, did not correspond to the names provided, or did not support the propositions for which they were offered. The court noted that these citations appeared to be generated by an artificial intelligence program. Plaintiff's counsel admitted to a lack of proper review for papers prepared by his office and submitted a formal apology to the court. The court rejected counsel's request to submit corrected papers, disregarded the defective legal support, and ultimately granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in CC New York, with the listed outcome: Apology from Counsel.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtCC New York

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateJan 15, 2026

AI toolAI (unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeThe court disregarded the plaintiff's defective legal arguments and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction; counsel provided a formal apology.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

Court noted citations appeared to be generated by an AI program.

Procedural posture

The court addressed the merits of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction after previously granting a default judgment that was later vacated.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Citation “Matter of Knapp v Knapp, 225 AD2d 1010 (4th Dept 1996)” could not be located under that name and instead led to a different matter (Orange Steel Erectors v Newburgh Steel Products Inc.); court found it defective/unverified.
Fabricated: Case Law | Citation “Matter of Negron v St. Charles Hosp. & Rehab. Ctr., 121 AD3d 1427 (2d Dept 2014)” led to a different matter (People v Rojas) and did not support counsel's argument; court could not find the cited matter.
Fabricated: Case Law | Citation “Matter of Polizzi v Polizzi, 226 AD2d 581 (2d Dept 1996)” did not correspond to that matter and led to a different case (Epes v Healey); court found it defective/unverified.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation “Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Estwick, 160 AD3d 911 (2d Dept 2018)” exists but the opinion does not support the proposition asserted by counsel; misrepresentation of precedent.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Corst v. Mushailov?: The court identified multiple fabricated and misrepresented case citations in the plaintiff's filings, which it attributed to the use of an AI program. Counsel apologized to the court, admitting to a failure to properly review the submissions. The court disregarded the defective legal arguments and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.
Why does Corst v. Mushailov matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in CC New York, with the listed outcome: Apology from Counsel.
What does the public record establish about Corst v. Mushailov?: 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 Corst v. Mushailov 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.

H.F. v. StateCC New York · Feb 10, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Matter of SamuelCC New York · Jan 11, 2024same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Sharei Torah v. HendelSC New York · Jun 1, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + misrepresented authority Sana Hazina Butler v. Fidelity Management & Research Company LLCS.D. New York · Apr 30, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + misrepresented authority Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James KaloidisSC New York · Apr 3, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + misrepresented authority Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd. et al.S.D. New York · Dec 17, 2025same jurisdiction · 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 Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open CC New York profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology