AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesKertesz v. Colony Tire Corp et al.
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Kertesz v. Colony Tire Corp et al.

D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2025

NJ / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotesemploymenttrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Court issued a warning by refusing to consider the attorney's amended briefs and treating arguments supported by AI-generated fabricated citations as unsupported. The judge explicitly cautioned that failure to exercise proper oversight when using AI in legal filings is sanctionable under professional conduct rules.

Why the court cared
The Court determined that it would not consider the amended briefs or errata, reasoning that the integrity of the record required treating propositions supported only by incorrect or made-up citations as unsupported.
Why it matters now
A Notice of Errata won't always save you — next judge may sanction; build verification before filing, not after.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's counsel filed a Notice of Errata acknowledging 'erroneous citation ... errors' in four briefs caused by the attorney's use of AI; the Court treated arguments supported by incorrect or made-up citations as unsupported and declined to consider the amended briefs on those points. Outcome: Warning. Plaintiff's counsel filed a Notice of Errata admitting that erroneous citation and quotation errors in multiple briefs resulted from the attorney's use of generative AI. The Court refused to consider the amended briefs/errata for purposes of its decision and treated any propositions supported solely by the incorrect or made-up citations as unsupported. The Court declined to impose sanctions but warned the attorney that relying on AI without proper oversight can be sanctionable under the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct.

Operational lesson

A Notice of Errata won't always save you — next judge may sanction; build verification before filing, not after.

Record details

New JerseySingle-state evidence scope
Explore NJOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. New Jersey
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit3rd Circuit
DateSep 30, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe Court issued a warning to counsel and excluded the amended briefs from consideration, treating arguments supported by the fabricated citations as unsupported.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionThe Court issued a formal warning to counsel regarding the potential for future sanctions under the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The court opinion refers to the attorney's use of generative AI without naming a specific tool.

Procedural posture

The matter was before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The AI-related issue arose following the filing of a Notice of Errata by Plaintiff's counsel on July 24, 2025, during the summary judgment briefing phase.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's counsel filed a Notice of Errata acknowledging 'erroneous citation ... errors' in four briefs caused by the attorney's use of AI; the Court treated arguments supported by incorrect or made-up citations as unsupported and declined to consider the amended briefs on those points.
  2. False Quotes: Case Law | Attorney's use of AI produced incorrect quotations and citation errors in submitted briefs; the Court noted these false quotations/citations and cautioned counsel that such misrepresentations violate professional conduct rules and risk sanctions.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Kertesz v. Colony Tire Corp et al.?
The Court issued a warning by refusing to consider the attorney's amended briefs and treating arguments supported by AI-generated fabricated citations as unsupported. The judge explicitly cautioned that failure to exercise proper oversight when using AI in legal filings is sanctionable under professional conduct rules.
Why does Kertesz v. Colony Tire Corp et al. matter for legal AI risk?
A Notice of Errata won't always save you — next judge may sanction; build verification before filing, not after.
What does the public record establish about Kertesz v. Colony Tire Corp et al.?
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 Kertesz v. Colony Tire Corp et al. 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.

Cesareo v. Port Authority of New York and New JerseyD. New Jersey · Dec 31, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesEric Hildebrandt v. siParadigm LLC et al.D. New Jersey · Dec 31, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesRichard M. Zelma v. Wonder Group Inc.D. New Jersey · Oct 22, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesOTG New York, Inc. v. Ottogi America, Inc.D. New Jersey · Sep 18, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesSantos v. Hoboken Public School District, et al.D. New Jersey · Sep 3, 2026same court · fake citations + employmentKurelko v. BallardD. New Jersey · Aug 25, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes