HomeCasesFlycatcher v. Affable Avenue

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue

S.D. New York · Feb 5, 2026

NY / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritycontract

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Affable's motion to dismiss included numerous non-existent case citations generated by AI; Opposing counsel identified at least 13 fabricated cases and the Court found 14 of 60 citations to be fake. Outcome: Brief Struck; Default Judgment. Counsel Steven A. Feldman repeatedly filed submissions containing AI-generated nonexistent case citations and misattributed quotations. Opposing counsel flagged numerous errors; the Court found fabricated citations and false quotes, concluded counsel acted in bad faith or with conscious avoidance, struck the filings, and entered default judgment against counsel's client Affable Avenue LLC.…

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Affable's motion to dismiss included numerous non-existent case citations generated by AI; Opposing counsel identified at least 13 fabricated cases and the Court found 14 of 60 citations to be fake. || Fabricated: Case Law | Proposed reply brief cited a nonexistent "Himmelstein v. Comcast of the D.C., LLC, 908 F.3d 49; aff'g 44 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2012)"—citations that do not exist and were inconsistent with the intended New York Court of Appeals decision. || False Quotes: Case Law | Response to Order to Show Cause quoted a passage presented as from Mata v. Avianca but the quoted language was actually from a secondary article by Christopher F. Lyon; counsel failed to attribute the quote properly. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Reply brief and subsequent explanations showed misattributed/mismatched reporter citations (e.g., counsel relied on a Google Scholar result for Himmelstein that returned unrelated D.D.C. citations like 931 F. Supp. 2d 48), reflecting AI- or search-induced misrepresentation of the authoritative source.
Why it matters now: Paid legal-AI tools (vLex, Paxton, NotebookLM) do not cure verification duty; bad-faith denial converts sanctions into default judgment.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Paid legal-AI tools (vLex, Paxton, NotebookLM) do not cure verification duty; bad-faith denial converts sanctions into default judgment.

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

DateFeb 5, 2026

AI toolNotebookLM; vLex; Paxton AI

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeBrief Struck; Default Judgment

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

NotebookLM; vLex; Paxton AI is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Brief Struck; Default Judgment

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 | Affable's motion to dismiss included numerous non-existent case citations generated by AI; Opposing counsel identified at least 13 fabricated cases and the Court found 14 of 60 citations to be fake.
Fabricated: Case Law | Proposed reply brief cited a nonexistent "Himmelstein v. Comcast of the D.C., LLC, 908 F.3d 49; aff'g 44 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2012)"—citations that do not exist and were inconsistent with the intended New York Court of Appeals decision.
False Quotes: Case Law | Response to Order to Show Cause quoted a passage presented as from Mata v. Avianca but the quoted language was actually from a secondary article by Christopher F. Lyon; counsel failed to attribute the quote properly.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Reply brief and subsequent explanations showed misattributed/mismatched reporter citations (e.g., counsel relied on a Google Scholar result for Himmelstein that returned unrelated D.D.C. citations like 931 F. Supp. 2d 48), reflecting AI- or search-induced misrepresentation of the authoritative source.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue?: Fabricated: Case Law | Affable's motion to dismiss included numerous non-existent case citations generated by AI; Opposing counsel identified at least 13 fabricated cases and the Court found 14 of 60 citations to be fake. Outcome: Brief Struck; Default Judgment. Counsel Steven A. Feldman repeatedly filed submissions containing AI-generated nonexistent case citations and misattributed quotations. Opposing counsel flagged numerous errors; the Court found fabricated citations and false quotes, concluded counsel acted in bad faith or with conscious avoidance, struck the filings, and entered default judgment against counsel's client Affable Avenue LLC.…
Why does Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue matter for legal AI risk?: Paid legal-AI tools (vLex, Paxton, NotebookLM) do not cure verification duty; bad-faith denial converts sanctions into default judgment.
What does the public record establish about Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue?: 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 Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue 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 · fake citations + fabricated quotes Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd. et al.S.D. New York · Dec 17, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Saregama India Ltd. v. B.A., et al.S.D. New York · Dec 3, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Tameer Peak v. Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, et al.S.D. New York · Nov 26, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USAS.D. New York · Jun 25, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Mata v. Avianca, IncS.D. New York · Jun 22, 2023same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes

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

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

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Paid legal-AI tools (vLex, Paxton, NotebookLM) do not cure verification duty; bad-faith denial converts sanctions into default judgment.

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

DateFeb 5, 2026

AI toolNotebookLM; vLex; Paxton AI

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeBrief Struck; Default Judgment

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Proposed reply brief cited a nonexistent "Himmelstein v. Comcast of the D.C., LLC, 908 F.3d 49; aff'g 44 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2012)"—citations that do not exist and were inconsistent with the intended New York Court of Appeals decision.

False Quotes: Case Law | Response to Order to Show Cause quoted a passage presented as from Mata v. Avianca but the quoted language was actually from a secondary article by Christopher F. Lyon; counsel failed to attribute the quote properly.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Reply brief and subsequent explanations showed misattributed/mismatched reporter citations (e.g., counsel relied on a Google Scholar result for Himmelstein that returned unrelated D.D.C. citations like 931 F. Supp. 2d 48), reflecting AI- or search-induced misrepresentation of the authoritative source.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue?

Why does Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue matter for legal AI risk?

Paid legal-AI tools (vLex, Paxton, NotebookLM) do not cure verification duty; bad-faith denial converts sanctions into default judgment.

What does the public record establish about Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue?

Which source supports this Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue 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.