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.
Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue (1)
S.D. New York · Jul 18, 2025
NY / federalEditorial impact: lowfabricated quotescontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
False Quotes: Case Law | Response misattributed a quote to Mata; court found it appears nowhere in Mata and actually comes from a 2023 article by Christopher F. Lyon, with no attribution. Outcome: Decision on sanctions reserved. Counsel submitted a response to an Order to Show Cause that included a false quote attributed to none other than Mata v. Avianca, a case about hallucinations.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether quotations and pincites accurately matched the cited source. The tracked outcome is Decision on sanctions reserved; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Never quote Mata v. Avianca from memory; verify every case-law quote against the primary source before filing.
Why this matter is tracked
False Quotes: Case Law | Response misattributed a quote to Mata; court found it appears nowhere in Mata and actually comes from a 2023 article by Christopher F. Lyon, with no attribution. Outcome: Decision on sanctions reserved. Counsel submitted a response to an Order to Show Cause that included a false quote attributed to none other than Mata v. Avianca, a case about hallucinations.
Operational lesson
Never quote Mata v. Avianca from memory; verify every case-law quote against the primary source before filing.
Record details
New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
CourtS.D. New York
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateJul 18, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeDecision on sanctions reserved
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Decision on sanctions reserved
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.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Response misattributed a quote to Mata; court found it appears nowhere in Mata and actually comes from a 2023 article by Christopher F. Lyon, with no attribution.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue (1)?
- False Quotes: Case Law | Response misattributed a quote to Mata; court found it appears nowhere in Mata and actually comes from a 2023 article by Christopher F. Lyon, with no attribution. Outcome: Decision on sanctions reserved. Counsel submitted a response to an Order to Show Cause that included a false quote attributed to none other than Mata v. Avianca, a case about hallucinations.
- Why does Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue (1) matter for legal AI risk?
- Never quote Mata v. Avianca from memory; verify every case-law quote against the primary source before filing.
- What does the public record establish about Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue (1)?
- 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 Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue (1) 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.