Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesFrancois v. Medina
Evidence review: metadata only. The linked page is generic, shared, or insufficiently case-specific. This page therefore preserves only the structured corpus baseline.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Francois v. Medina

Supreme Court, NY · Mar 24, 2025

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

In Francois v. Medina, a New York Supreme Court warning followed counsel's reliance on the nonexistent United States v. Harris, 761 F. Supp. 409, and on a quotation that does not appear in the authority cited. No monetary sanction is recorded in the available source. The incident record does not reliably name an AI product, so the tool field should remain unidentified.

Why the court cared
The linked record identifies trial and records Warning. This page does not infer judicial reasoning beyond the source.
Why it matters now
New York trial courts are still issuing warnings rather than fines; this leniency window is closing fast.

Why this matter is tracked

In Francois v. Medina, a New York Supreme Court warning followed counsel's reliance on the nonexistent United States v. Harris, 761 F. Supp. 409, and on a quotation that does not appear in the authority cited. No monetary sanction is recorded in the available source. The incident record does not reliably name an AI product, so the tool field should remain unidentified.

Operational lesson

New York trial courts are still issuing warnings rather than fines; this leniency window is closing fast.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtSupreme Court, NY
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateMar 24, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeWarning
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

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Francois v. Medina?
In Francois v. Medina, a New York Supreme Court warning followed counsel's reliance on the nonexistent United States v. Harris, 761 F. Supp. 409, and on a quotation that does not appear in the authority cited. No monetary sanction is recorded in the available source. The incident record does not reliably name an AI product, so the tool field should remain unidentified.
Why does Francois v. Medina matter for legal AI risk?
New York trial courts are still issuing warnings rather than fines; this leniency window is closing fast.
What does the public record establish about Francois v. Medina?
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 Francois v. Medina 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.