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 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Happiness Idehen & Felix Ogieva v. Gloria Stoute-Phillip
N.Y. Civil Court · Jul 29, 2025
/ stateEditorial impact: highfake citationsmisrepresented authoritytrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Party said he wanted to cite "Liggett v. Lew Realty." LaSalle" Outcome: Monetary Sanction; referral to the Bar. After being ordered to show cause, Counsel submitted a brief that compounded the issue."The Court was dismayed to see that some of the discussion/analysis provided by Mr.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Monetary Sanction; referral to the Bar; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Never file AI-generated case summaries verbatim; telltale AI disclaimers in briefs trigger bar referrals.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Party said he wanted to cite "Liggett v. Lew Realty." LaSalle" Outcome: Monetary Sanction; referral to the Bar. After being ordered to show cause, Counsel submitted a brief that compounded the issue."The Court was dismayed to see that some of the discussion/analysis provided by Mr. Chinweze appeared to be from artificial intelligence generated case summaries which was indicated by the inclusion several times of the statement that "Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI." Another indication that the paragraphs of discussion/analysis were copied from another source or were generated by AI is that several paragraphs have superscript for footnotes, but no footnotes are found on any page of the Appendix."The court then cited this database to highlight the growing problem of hallucinations in legal cases.Counsel was ordered to pay 1,000 USD to the Lawyers Fund for Client Protection, and he was referred to the bar authorities.
Operational lesson
Never file AI-generated case summaries verbatim; telltale AI disclaimers in briefs trigger bar referrals.
Record details
CourtN.Y. Civil Court
Jurisdictionstate
CircuitNot recorded
DateJul 29, 2025
MS
AI toolMS Copilot
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary Sanction; referral to the Bar
Known amount$1,000
Professional sanctionYes
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
MS Copilot is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Monetary Sanction; referral to the Bar
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
14 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Party said he wanted to cite "Liggett v. Lew Realty." LaSalle"
- Misrepresented: Case Law
- Misrepresented: Case Law | "Nothing in the Pusatere decision remotely addresses the issues raised in Respondent's motion to dismiss."
- Misrepresented: Case Law
- Misrepresented: Case Law | "The next twenty-five pages of the appendix contains the full text of the decision which does not in any way, shape, or form address [*9]whether the landlord-tenant relationship continues after the property is sold or anything else remotely connected to the issues raised in Respondent's motion to dismiss. Also concerning is that immediately following the full text of the Revis decision on page 58 is another instance of the following statement: "Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.""
- Fabricated: Case Law | Party said it should be Friedman v. Yosef, 2016 N.Y.Misc.LEXIS 384 (App. Term, 2nd Dept. 2016).
- Misrepresented: Case Law
- Fabricated: Case Law | Party said Vargas v. Sotelo, 2017 NY Slip Op 50417(U)(Civ. Ct., Bronx Cty. 2017) replaced the two fake cases
Show 6 additional discrepancies
- Fabricated: Case Law
- Misrepresented: Case Law
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm
- Misrepresented: Case Law
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm
- Misrepresented: Case Law
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Happiness Idehen & Felix Ogieva v. Gloria Stoute-Phillip?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Party said he wanted to cite "Liggett v. Lew Realty." LaSalle" Outcome: Monetary Sanction; referral to the Bar. After being ordered to show cause, Counsel submitted a brief that compounded the issue."The Court was dismayed to see that some of the discussion/analysis provided by Mr.…
- Why does Happiness Idehen & Felix Ogieva v. Gloria Stoute-Phillip matter for legal AI risk?
- Never file AI-generated case summaries verbatim; telltale AI disclaimers in briefs trigger bar referrals.
- What does the public record establish about Happiness Idehen & Felix Ogieva v. Gloria Stoute-Phillip?
- 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 Happiness Idehen & Felix Ogieva v. Gloria Stoute-Phillip 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.