Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0ELRQTIGenerated August 19, 2026Evidence checked Aug 19, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Mendel S. v. Faigy S.

Family Court New York · Jul 31, 2026

Jurisdiction
state
Court
Family Court New York
Record ID
mendel-s-v-faigy-s-2026-07-31
Observed outcome
Monetary Sanction
Known monetary consequence
$1,000
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found 11 of 16 citations in counsel's Objection were fabricated AI-generated cases that do not exist. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. The Family Court sua sponte reviewed counsel's Objection and determined that 11 of 16 cited authorities were fabricated AI-generated cases and that, in nearly all other instances, real cases did not support the propositions asserted. The Court concluded counsel's failure to verify AI-produced citations amounted to frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1, wasted judicial resources, and warranted a sanction. The court imposed a $1,000 monetary sanction but declined to refer counsel to the Attorney Grievance Committee, noting counsel's timely acceptance of responsibility and remorse as mitigating factors.

Why the decision-maker cared

The structured public record identifies fake citations and misrepresented authority and records Monetary Sanction. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.

Why it matters now

This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Monetary Sanction in Family Court New York. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Fake Citations
  • Misrepresented Authority
  • Family
  • Trial
  • Monetary
AI attribution
Not Established
Recorded tool
Unidentified
Known monetary consequence
$1,000
Procedural posture
Monetary Sanction
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

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.

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
  2. Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
  3. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.