HomeCasesFecteau v. Safety National Casualty Corporation

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Fecteau v. Safety National Casualty Corporation

S.D. New York · Mar 25, 2026

NY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotescontract

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Plaintiff quoted non-existent statutory language as if from 50 U.S.C. § 3936, asserting it tolled filing deadlines (the Court found the quoted language does not appear in § 3936).

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in S.D. 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 AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in S.D. 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.

CourtS.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateMar 25, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

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: Legal Norm | Plaintiff quoted non-existent statutory language as if from 50 U.S.C. § 3936, asserting it tolled filing deadlines (the Court found the quoted language does not appear in § 3936).
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff purported to quote existing opinions (e.g., Conroy v. Aniskoff and Gordon) but recited language that appears nowhere in those opinions; the Court found these to be false quotations.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Fecteau v. Safety National Casualty Corporation?: Fabricated: Legal Norm | Plaintiff quoted non-existent statutory language as if from 50 U.S.C. § 3936, asserting it tolled filing deadlines (the Court found the quoted language does not appear in § 3936).
Why does Fecteau v. Safety National Casualty Corporation matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Fecteau v. Safety National Casualty Corporation?: 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 Fecteau v. Safety National Casualty Corporation 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 citations Avalon Holdings Corp. v. Guy GentileS.D. New York · Jan 22, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Saregama India Ltd. v. B.A., et al.S.D. New York · Dec 3, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Tameer Peak v. Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, et al.S.D. New York · Nov 26, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Habib Miah v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC, et al.S.D. New York · Oct 11, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USAS.D. New York · Jun 25, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations

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.

CourtS.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateMar 25, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff purported to quote existing opinions (e.g., Conroy v. Aniskoff and Gordon) but recited language that appears nowhere in those opinions; the Court found these to be false quotations.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Fecteau v. Safety National Casualty Corporation?

Why does Fecteau v. Safety National Casualty Corporation matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Fecteau v. Safety National Casualty Corporation?

Which source supports this Fecteau v. Safety National Casualty Corporation 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.