HomeCasesIn the Matter of the Application of Jonathan David Rinaldi

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. 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 the Application of Jonathan David Rinaldi

SC New York · Apr 27, 2026

NY / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

In In the Matter of the Application of Jonathan David Rinaldi, the SC New York addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that petitioner cited nonexistent case law in his memorandum; court observed some citations appeared fabricated. The source record does not state a separate procedural consequence. The entry is dated 2026-04-27. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding.

Why the court cared: The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Petitioner cited nonexistent case law in his memorandum; court observed some citations appeared fabricated..
Why it matters now: The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtSC New York

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateApr 27, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

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

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

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 | Petitioner cited nonexistent case law in his memorandum; court observed some citations appeared fabricated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In the Matter of the Application of Jonathan David Rinaldi?: In In the Matter of the Application of Jonathan David Rinaldi, the SC New York addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that petitioner cited nonexistent case law in his memorandum; court observed some citations appeared fabricated. The source record does not state a separate procedural consequence. The entry is dated 2026-04-27. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding.
Why does In the Matter of the Application of Jonathan David Rinaldi matter for legal AI risk?: The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
What does the public record establish about In the Matter of the Application of Jonathan David Rinaldi?: Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
Which source supports this In the Matter of the Application of Jonathan David Rinaldi 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.

Kevin Krzeminski v. Janine McQuillanSC New York · Jul 6, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Sharei Torah v. HendelSC New York · Jun 1, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Gully v VargheseSC New York · May 12, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Hilpert v. 16 Judge SPV LLCSC New York · Dec 4, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Morris Gafni v. Rapid Foreclosure Refunds et al.SC New York · Nov 21, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Wheat v. VichieSC New York · Nov 3, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtSC New York

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateApr 27, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Questions this record answers

What happened in In the Matter of the Application of Jonathan David Rinaldi?

Why does In the Matter of the Application of Jonathan David Rinaldi matter for legal AI risk?

The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

What does the public record establish about In the Matter of the Application of Jonathan David Rinaldi?

Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.

Which source supports this In the Matter of the Application of Jonathan David Rinaldi 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.