AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesNg v. AmGuard Insurance Company, et al.
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Ng v. AmGuard Insurance Company, et al.

S.D. New York · Dec 29, 2025

NY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstorttrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant for including a fabricated case citation in a court filing, which the Court attributed to the potential use of generative AI. The Judge warned that future submissions of nonexistent authorities could lead to sanctions, including dismissal.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Greyhound-Thermalink, Inc. v. B.U.R. Realty Corp., 42 A.D.3d 319, 320 (N.Y. 1st Dep’t 2007)', which the Court's research found does not appear to exist; Court warned about AI-generated fake citations.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In a civil action, the pro se plaintiff submitted a brief containing a citation to 'Greyhound-Thermalink, Inc. v. B.U.R. Realty Corp., 42 A.D.3d 319, 320 (N.Y. 1st Dep’t 2007)'. The Court's research indicated that this case does not exist. The Magistrate Judge noted that generative AI tools are known to produce fabricated citations and warned the plaintiff that submitting such material is unacceptable. The Court explicitly cautioned that future filings containing citations to nonexistent cases may result in sanctions, including the striking of submissions, filing restrictions, monetary penalties, or dismissal of the case. The Court also reminded all parties of the local requirement to disclose and verify the use of generative AI in court filings.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtS.D. New York
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateDec 29, 2025
GE
AI toolGenerative AI (unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe Court granted the defendants' motions to vacate the Clerk's Certificates of Default and issued a formal warning to the plaintiff regarding the use of AI-generated fake citations.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

The Court attributed the fake citation to ChatGPT or similar AI programs.

Procedural posture

Opinion and Order on motions to vacate Clerk’s Certificates of Default.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Greyhound-Thermalink, Inc. v. B.U.R. Realty Corp., 42 A.D.3d 319, 320 (N.Y. 1st Dep’t 2007)', which the Court's research found does not appear to exist; Court warned about AI-generated fake citations.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Ng v. AmGuard Insurance Company, et al.?
The Court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant for including a fabricated case citation in a court filing, which the Court attributed to the potential use of generative AI. The Judge warned that future submissions of nonexistent authorities could lead to sanctions, including dismissal.
Why does Ng v. AmGuard Insurance Company, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Ng v. AmGuard Insurance Company, et al.?
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Ng v. AmGuard Insurance Company, et al. 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.

John Doe v. James P. Ehrhard, Esq.S.D. New York · Dec 1, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsMitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Juliet Doherty et al.S.D. New York · Oct 18, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsEric Andrew Perez v. Dr. Neil C. Evans, et al.S.D. New York · Sep 25, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsPhilippeaux v. United States, et al.S.D. New York · Sep 8, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsFernando Justino Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon, et al.S.D. New York · Jul 31, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsJason Wimberly v. Verizon New York Inc.S.D. New York · Jun 12, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations