Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-1Y4WZY1Generated September 11, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Evgeny Yaroshevsky v. Karlin et al.

E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2026

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
E.D. New York
Record ID
evgeny-yaroshevsky-v-karlin-et-al-2026-03-31
Observed outcome
The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the defendants' motion for sanctions, specifically recommending dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and an award of costs and attorneys' fees.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The Court recommended dismissing the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice and awarding costs and attorneys' fees to the defendants as a sanction for the plaintiff's persistent use of AI-generated, fabricated legal authorities and his failure to verify citations despite repeated judicial warnings.

Why the decision-maker cared

The Court reasoned that the plaintiff's persistent use of nonexistent authority and failure to correct filings after multiple warnings and a safe harbor period constituted a violation of Rule 11. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff's use of generative AI without verification imposed an undue burden on the court and opposing counsel, and that the plaintiff's repeated misrepresentations to the court regarding his verification efforts demonstrated bad faith, justifying dismissal with prejudice.

Why it matters now

Consumer chatbots like Gemini are not research tools — ban them from the legal research workflow outright.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Fabricated Quotes
  • Misrepresented Authority
  • Contract
  • Trial
AI attribution
Admitted
Recorded tool
Gemini
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Report and Recommendation on Defendants' motions to dismiss and for Rule 11 sanctions.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

Plaintiff admitted using Google Gemini to obtain citations.

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.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
  2. Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
  3. Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
  4. Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.