HomeCasesLandberg v City of New York

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Landberg v City of New York

CA NY (2d) · Jun 23, 2026

NY / stateEditorial impact: highfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritytort

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

In Landberg v City of New York, the CA NY (2d) addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a lawyer filing. The linked source records that brief cited a nonexistent New York case for the standard of appellate review of summary judgment. The recorded procedural consequence is Monetary Sanction. The entry is dated 2026-06-23. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.

Why the court cared: The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Brief cited a nonexistent New York case for the standard of appellate review of summary judgment..
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.

CourtCA NY (2d)

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateJun 23, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeMonetary Sanction

Known amount$10,500

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

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited a nonexistent New York case for the standard of appellate review of summary judgment.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief mischaracterized the holding of a real case by attributing a rule about construing remedial statute exceptions that the opinion does not contain.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief represented that Rodgers held a two-year records search can be sufficient to establish lack of prior written notice; Rodgers did not address that issue.
Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited a nonexistent Court of Appeals opinion and attributed a fabricated quotation about construing Admin. Code § 7-210 liberally.
Fabricated: Case Law | Brief quoted a fictitious appellate decision as declaring owners are 'in the best position to monitor and control' adjacent walkways; no such opinion exists at the cited citation.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Landberg v City of New York?: In Landberg v City of New York, the CA NY (2d) addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a lawyer filing. The linked source records that brief cited a nonexistent New York case for the standard of appellate review of summary judgment. The recorded procedural consequence is Monetary Sanction. The entry is dated 2026-06-23. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.
Why does Landberg v City of New York 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 Landberg v City of New York?: 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 Landberg v City of New York 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.

Keefe v. BMakin Film LtdSC New York · Apr 24, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotes Joyce Barber v. Lawrence J. Morawa, MDCA Michigan · Jun 17, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: Unidentified Carol L. Williams v. Tracy HonlCA Oregon · Apr 22, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: Unidentified Russell v. MellsCA Florida · Dec 10, 2025fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: Unidentified Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C.SC New York · Jan 27, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotes Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Juliet Doherty et al.S.D. New York · Oct 18, 2025same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotes

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.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited a nonexistent New York case for the standard of appellate review of summary judgment.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief mischaracterized the holding of a real case by attributing a rule about construing remedial statute exceptions that the opinion does not contain.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief represented that Rodgers held a two-year records search can be sufficient to establish lack of prior written notice; Rodgers did not address that issue.

Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited a nonexistent Court of Appeals opinion and attributed a fabricated quotation about construing Admin. Code § 7-210 liberally.

Fabricated: Case Law | Brief quoted a fictitious appellate decision as declaring owners are 'in the best position to monitor and control' adjacent walkways; no such opinion exists at the cited citation.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Landberg v City of New York?

Why does Landberg v City of New York 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 Landberg v City of New York?

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 Landberg v City of New York 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.