Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-12BYWNLGenerated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Francois v. Medina

Supreme Court, NY · Mar 24, 2025

Jurisdiction
state
Court
Supreme Court, NY
Record ID
francois-v-medina-2025-03-24
Observed outcome
Warning
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

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 decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Trial
  • Warning
AI attribution
Not Established
Recorded tool
Unidentified
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Warning
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

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

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: Metadata Only (medium confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.