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 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Eric Andrew Perez v. Dr. Neil C. Evans, et al.
S.D. New York · Sep 25, 2025
NY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation to 'Concepcion v. City of New York, No. 05 Civ. 8501 (RJS), 2008 WL 5395720, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2008),' but no such December 17, 2008 S.D.N.Y. opinion exists; the quoted language actually appears in Armco, Inc. v. Penrod-Stauffer Building Systems, Inc., 733 F.2d 1087, 1089 (4th Cir. 1984). Court treated this citation as a hallucinated/fabricated citation and noted the misattribution and omission of context. Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving ChatGPT with Warning in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation to 'Concepcion v. City of New York, No. 05 Civ. 8501 (RJS), 2008 WL 5395720, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2008),' but no such December 17, 2008 S.D.N.Y. opinion exists; the quoted language actually appears in Armco, Inc. v. Penrod-Stauffer Building Systems, Inc., 733 F.2d 1087, 1089 (4th Cir. 1984). Court treated this citation as a hallucinated/fabricated citation and noted the misattribution and omission of context. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving ChatGPT with Warning in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
CourtS.D. New York
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateSep 25, 2025
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Warning
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation to 'Concepcion v. City of New York, No. 05 Civ. 8501 (RJS), 2008 WL 5395720, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2008),' but no such December 17, 2008 S.D.N.Y. opinion exists; the quoted language actually appears in Armco, Inc. v. Penrod-Stauffer Building Systems, Inc., 733 F.2d 1087, 1089 (4th Cir. 1984). Court treated this citation as a hallucinated/fabricated citation and noted the misattribution and omission of context.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'United States v. Peterson, No. 3:17-cr-00065 (D. Conn. 2018)' and claimed the case supported a proposition about deception vitiating consent; the docket cited corresponds to United States v. Cook and the Peterson citation appears scrambled; the actual Peterson decision (No. 3:18-CR-00049, 2018 WL 6061571) holds the opposite of Plaintiff's asserted rule. Court treated this as an AI-generated misrepresentation/scrambled citation and noted the holding contradicted Plaintiff's use.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Eric Andrew Perez v. Dr. Neil C. Evans, et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation to 'Concepcion v. City of New York, No. 05 Civ. 8501 (RJS), 2008 WL 5395720, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2008),' but no such December 17, 2008 S.D.N.Y. opinion exists; the quoted language actually appears in Armco, Inc. v. Penrod-Stauffer Building Systems, Inc., 733 F.2d 1087, 1089 (4th Cir. 1984). Court treated this citation as a hallucinated/fabricated citation and noted the misattribution and omission of context. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Eric Andrew Perez v. Dr. Neil C. Evans, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving ChatGPT with Warning in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Eric Andrew Perez v. Dr. Neil C. Evans, et al.?
- 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 Eric Andrew Perez v. Dr. Neil C. Evans, et al. 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.