Mercante v. Tarzia
E.D. New York · Oct 2, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- E.D. New York
- Record ID
- mercante-v-tarzia-2026-10-02
- Observed outcome
- None Adjudicated
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
Fabricated: Case Law | Defense counsel cited a nonexistent case as authority for denying a fee motion. The court confirmed that the case was fictitious, characterized it as an AI hallucination, and held that citing it violated Rule 11. Defense counsel admitted using a Westlaw AI tool to identify cases and copying propositions without verifying the authorities or citations. The court found one fictitious case, several false quotations and mis-citations, and at least one materially misrepresented precedent. It held that citing the fictitious case violated Rule 11, but affirmed the magistrate judge's decision not to issue an order to show cause or impose sanctions because Rule 11 sanctions are discretionary, the errors caused no sufficiently demonstrated burden requiring further proceedings, and an admonition was within the court's discretion.
The structured public record identifies fake citations and fabricated quotes and records a recorded judicial or procedural response. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with a recorded judicial or procedural response in E.D. New York. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Tort
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- Westlaw AI
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Westlaw AI is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.