HomeCasesKleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James Kaloidis

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James Kaloidis

SC New York · Apr 3, 2026

NY / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontracttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff represented Pace v Raisman & Assocs. as dismissing counterclaims for post-breakdown claims; court found this to be a mischaracterization of the actual holding. Outcome: Sanctions.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Sanctions; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: Eighty-three misstated holdings in one brief means no one read the cases; require a human-read verification log per filing.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Eighty-three misstated holdings in one brief means no one read the cases; require a human-read verification log per filing.

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 3, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeSanctions

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

Sanctions

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff represented Pace v Raisman & Assocs. as dismissing counterclaims for post-breakdown claims; court found this to be a mischaracterization of the actual holding.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff claimed Butler v Catinella involved sanctions; court found Butler does not involve sanctions and Plaintiff misstated that holding.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified 'Feder Kaszovitz LLP v Rosen, 202 AD3d 421 [1st Dept 2022]' as a non-existent (fabricated) citation repeatedly used in Plaintiff's submissions.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified 'Bauer v Cravath, Swain & Moore, LLP, 177 AD3d 479 [1st Dept 2019]' as a fictitious case cited by Plaintiff.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified 'Pine v AJA Delivery, Inc., 201 AD3d 640 [2d Dept 2022]' (listed in filings as Pine v AIA Delivery) as a fabricated citation.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Court identified widespread misstatements of holdings (at least 83 instances) across many cited authorities, requiring judicial resources to correct.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James Kaloidis?: Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff represented Pace v Raisman & Assocs. as dismissing counterclaims for post-breakdown claims; court found this to be a mischaracterization of the actual holding. Outcome: Sanctions.
Why does Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James Kaloidis matter for legal AI risk?: Eighty-three misstated holdings in one brief means no one read the cases; require a human-read verification log per filing.
What does the public record establish about Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James Kaloidis?: 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 Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James Kaloidis 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.

Sharei Torah v. HendelSC New York · Jun 1, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Fora Financial Asset Securitization v. Teona Ostrov Public RelationsSC New York · Jan 24, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. STI-NY, LLCSC New York · May 28, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Ellen Michaelis v. Wilmington Savings Fund SocietySC New York · Apr 3, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Matter of ZarehSC New York · Feb 10, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Deutsche Bank National Bank v. Jean LeTennierSC New York · Jan 8, 2026same court · 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

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

Eighty-three misstated holdings in one brief means no one read the cases; require a human-read verification log per filing.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff represented Pace v Raisman & Assocs. as dismissing counterclaims for post-breakdown claims; court found this to be a mischaracterization of the actual holding.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff claimed Butler v Catinella involved sanctions; court found Butler does not involve sanctions and Plaintiff misstated that holding.

Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified 'Feder Kaszovitz LLP v Rosen, 202 AD3d 421 [1st Dept 2022]' as a non-existent (fabricated) citation repeatedly used in Plaintiff's submissions.

Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified 'Bauer v Cravath, Swain & Moore, LLP, 177 AD3d 479 [1st Dept 2019]' as a fictitious case cited by Plaintiff.

Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified 'Pine v AJA Delivery, Inc., 201 AD3d 640 [2d Dept 2022]' (listed in filings as Pine v AIA Delivery) as a fabricated citation.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Court identified widespread misstatements of holdings (at least 83 instances) across many cited authorities, requiring judicial resources to correct.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James Kaloidis?

Why does Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James Kaloidis matter for legal AI risk?

Eighty-three misstated holdings in one brief means no one read the cases; require a human-read verification log per filing.

What does the public record establish about Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James Kaloidis?

Which source supports this Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James Kaloidis 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.