AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
Search free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Nov 7, 2026 · Latest decision Nov 3, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesMary-Rose F. Calenzo v. Waste Management, Inc.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Mary-Rose F. Calenzo v. Waste Management, Inc.

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Jesse Schaefer; document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

Cite this record

N.D. New York · Aug 5, 2026

NY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsemploymenttrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this opinion in opposition; the Court was unable to locate or verify it and treated it as nonexistent. Outcome: Warning: the court found at least four nonexistent cases in Plaintiff's opposition and warned that further citations to nonexistent cases may lead to sanctions (section C, 2026 WL 2253803 at *7).

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Warning: the court found at least four nonexistent cases in Plaintiff's opposition and warned that further citations to nonexistent cases may lead to sanctions (section C, 2026 WL 2253803 at *7). The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the court found at least four nonexistent cases in Plaintiff's opposition and warned that further citations to nonexistent cases may lead to sanctions (section C, 2026 WL 2253803 at *7) in N.D. New York. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this opinion in opposition; the Court was unable to locate or verify it and treated it as nonexistent. Outcome: Warning: the court found at least four nonexistent cases in Plaintiff's opposition and warned that further citations to nonexistent cases may lead to sanctions (section C, 2026 WL 2253803 at *7).

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the court found at least four nonexistent cases in Plaintiff's opposition and warned that further citations to nonexistent cases may lead to sanctions (section C, 2026 WL 2253803 at *7) in N.D. New York. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtN.D. New York
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateAug 5, 2026
First seenAug 9, 2026 (in this dataset)
AI toolNo tool named in source
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning: the court found at least four nonexistent cases in Plaintiff's opposition and warned that further citations to nonexistent cases may lead to sanctions (section C, 2026 WL 2253803 at *7)
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo

Corrected 2026-11-02: see the corrections log.

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

Warning: the court found at least four nonexistent cases in Plaintiff's opposition and warned that further citations to nonexistent cases may lead to sanctions (section C, 2026 WL 2253803 at *7)

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this opinion in opposition; the Court was unable to locate or verify it and treated it as nonexistent.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this opinion in opposition; the Court was unable to locate or verify it and treated it as nonexistent.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this opinion in opposition; the Court was unable to locate or verify it and treated it as nonexistent.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this opinion in opposition; the Court was unable to locate or verify it and treated it as nonexistent.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Mary-Rose F. Calenzo v. Waste Management, Inc.?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this opinion in opposition; the Court was unable to locate or verify it and treated it as nonexistent. Outcome: Warning: the court found at least four nonexistent cases in Plaintiff's opposition and warned that further citations to nonexistent cases may lead to sanctions (section C, 2026 WL 2253803 at *7).
Why does Mary-Rose F. Calenzo v. Waste Management, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the court found at least four nonexistent cases in Plaintiff's opposition and warned that further citations to nonexistent cases may lead to sanctions (section C, 2026 WL 2253803 at *7) in N.D. New York. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Mary-Rose F. Calenzo v. Waste Management, Inc.?
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 Mary-Rose F. Calenzo v. Waste Management, Inc. 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.

Jeramiah Brown v. Fat Dough Incorp., doing business as Dominos PizzaN.D. New York · Sep 17, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsSmith v. Clarence Smith et al.N.D. New York · Dec 22, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsLinda Oliver v. Christian DribuschN.D. New York · Nov 21, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsMulqueen v. CoddingtonN.D. New York · Sep 23, 2026same court · pro se + trialRule v. BraimanN.D. New York · Sep 4, 2024same court · pro se + trialJeri'yah Ford v. Troy City School District, et al.N.D. New York · Mar 4, 2026same court · fake citations + trial

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.