HomeCasesIn the Matter of Kevin A. Julien v. Danielle M. Arthur

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

In the Matter of Kevin A. Julien v. Danielle M. Arthur

CA New York · May 27, 2026

NY / stateEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsfamilyappellate

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited a nonexistent Appellate Division, First Department decision to support a claim of judicial bias; court treated the citation as fabricated and linked it to unverified GenAI/online research use. Outcome: Monetary Sanction.

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; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Monetary Sanction in CA New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Monetary Sanction in CA New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtCA New York

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateMay 27, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeMonetary Sanction

Known amount$250

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

Monetary Sanction

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited a nonexistent Appellate Division, First Department decision to support a claim of judicial bias; court treated the citation as fabricated and linked it to unverified GenAI/online research use.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In the Matter of Kevin A. Julien v. Danielle M. Arthur?: Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited a nonexistent Appellate Division, First Department decision to support a claim of judicial bias; court treated the citation as fabricated and linked it to unverified GenAI/online research use. Outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Why does In the Matter of Kevin A. Julien v. Danielle M. Arthur matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Monetary Sanction in CA New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about In the Matter of Kevin A. Julien v. Danielle M. Arthur?: 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 In the Matter of Kevin A. Julien v. Danielle M. Arthur 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.

Barari v. BurgessCA Arizona (1d) · Jun 26, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Villanueva v. BowersCA Arizona (1d) · Jun 11, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Robert Hinton Avery v. Danielle BeauzilCA Florida (4d) · May 27, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Sherdena Rocky Ali v. Carlos Efre IdiokitasCA Kentucky · May 1, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Robert S. Hulvat v. Juli Gumina, STG Divorce Law, and Jennifer B. HulvatCA Illinois (3d) · Apr 9, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Anna Sheerer v. Thomas PanasCA California (d1) · Mar 19, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified

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

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Monetary Sanction in CA New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Questions this record answers

What happened in In the Matter of Kevin A. Julien v. Danielle M. Arthur?

Why does In the Matter of Kevin A. Julien v. Danielle M. Arthur matter for legal AI risk?

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Monetary Sanction in CA New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

What does the public record establish about In the Matter of Kevin A. Julien v. Danielle M. Arthur?

Which source supports this In the Matter of Kevin A. Julien v. Danielle M. Arthur 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.