HomeCasesH.F. v. State

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

H.F. v. State

CC New York · Feb 10, 2026

NY / stateEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsmisrepresented authoritytorttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Four Court of Claims cases cited in the Manning Affirmation could not be located and were treated as fictitious by the court. Outcome: Brief Partly Struck; Warning.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Four Court of Claims cases cited in the Manning Affirmation could not be located and were treated as fictitious by the court. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Counsel cited Court of Claims Act § 9(2) for the proposition that venue is proper where a claimant resides, but § 9(2) does not address venue or residence. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel relied on Lepkowski v. State of New York, 1 N.Y.3d 201 (2003), in support of venue arguments though the authority did not support the proposition advanced.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in CC New York, with the listed outcome: Brief Partly Struck; Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Four Court of Claims cases cited in the Manning Affirmation could not be located and were treated as fictitious by the court. Outcome: Brief Partly Struck; Warning.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in CC New York, with the listed outcome: Brief Partly Struck; Warning.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtCC New York

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateFeb 10, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeBrief Partly Struck; Warning

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

Brief Partly Struck; Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Four Court of Claims cases cited in the Manning Affirmation could not be located and were treated as fictitious by the court.
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Counsel cited Court of Claims Act § 9(2) for the proposition that venue is proper where a claimant resides, but § 9(2) does not address venue or residence.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel relied on Lepkowski v. State of New York, 1 N.Y.3d 201 (2003), in support of venue arguments though the authority did not support the proposition advanced.

Questions this record answers

What happened in H.F. v. State?: Fabricated: Case Law | Four Court of Claims cases cited in the Manning Affirmation could not be located and were treated as fictitious by the court. Outcome: Brief Partly Struck; Warning.
Why does H.F. v. State matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in CC New York, with the listed outcome: Brief Partly Struck; Warning.
What does the public record establish about H.F. v. State?: 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 H.F. v. State 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.

Corst v. MushailovCC New York · Jan 15, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Matter of SamuelCC New York · Jan 11, 2024same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Polanco v. Brooklyn Rose LLCSC New York · Jun 16, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + misrepresented authority Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C.SC New York · Jan 27, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + misrepresented authority Wurtenberg v. The City of New YorkSC New York · Jan 12, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + misrepresented authority Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Juliet Doherty et al.S.D. New York · Oct 18, 2025same jurisdiction · fake citations + misrepresented authority

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Four Court of Claims cases cited in the Manning Affirmation could not be located and were treated as fictitious by the court. Outcome: Brief Partly Struck; Warning.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in CC New York, with the listed outcome: Brief Partly Struck; Warning.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtCC New York

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateFeb 10, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeBrief Partly Struck; Warning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Four Court of Claims cases cited in the Manning Affirmation could not be located and were treated as fictitious by the court.

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Counsel cited Court of Claims Act § 9(2) for the proposition that venue is proper where a claimant resides, but § 9(2) does not address venue or residence.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel relied on Lepkowski v. State of New York, 1 N.Y.3d 201 (2003), in support of venue arguments though the authority did not support the proposition advanced.

Questions this record answers

What happened in H.F. v. State?

Fabricated: Case Law | Four Court of Claims cases cited in the Manning Affirmation could not be located and were treated as fictitious by the court. Outcome: Brief Partly Struck; Warning.

Why does H.F. v. State matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in CC New York, with the listed outcome: Brief Partly Struck; Warning.

What does the public record establish about H.F. v. State?

Which source supports this H.F. v. State 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.