AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 9, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 6, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesPolanco v. Brooklyn Rose LLC
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 81/100. 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

Polanco v. Brooklyn Rose LLC

SC New York · Jun 16, 2026 · Devin P. Cohen

NY / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authoritytorttrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court scheduled a sanctions hearing to investigate defense counsel's submission of approximately 24 problematic citations, including 14 fabricated or unlocatable cases and 10 misrepresented authorities, which were identified in the defendant's opposition to a summary judgment motion.

Why the court cared
The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Defense papers cited this case but court could not locate the citation or match the caption..
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

In Polanco v. Brooklyn Rose LLC, the SC New York addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a lawyer filing. The linked source records that defense papers cited this case but court could not locate the citation or match the caption. The recorded procedural consequence is Sanctions Hearing. The entry is dated 2026-06-16. 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.

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
Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtSC New York
Recorded decision-makerDevin P. Cohen · Justice
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateJun 16, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomePlaintiff's motion for summary judgment granted; sanctions hearing scheduled.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court noted the citations were likely generated by AI tools.

Procedural posture

Summary judgment granted for plaintiff; sanctions hearing scheduled.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Defense papers cited this case but court could not locate the citation or match the caption.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Defense papers cited this case but court could not locate the citation or match the caption.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Defense papers cited this case but court could not locate the citation or match the caption.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Defense papers cited this case but court could not locate the citation or match the caption.
  5. Fabricated: Case Law | Defense papers cited this case but court could not locate the citation or match the caption.
  6. Fabricated: Case Law | Defense papers cited this case but court could not locate the citation or match the caption.
  7. Fabricated: Case Law | Defense papers cited this case but court could not locate the citation or match the caption.
  8. Fabricated: Case Law | Defense papers cited this case but court could not locate the citation or match the caption.
Show 15 additional discrepancies
  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Defense papers cited this case but court could not locate the citation or match the caption.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Defense papers cited this case but court could not locate the citation or match the caption.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Defense papers cited this case but court could not locate the citation or match the caption.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Defense papers cited this case but court could not locate the citation or match the caption.
  5. Misrepresented: Case Law | Defense paper cited this correct case but court found it was used to support a proposition inconsistent with the case's holding.
  6. Misrepresented: Case Law | Defense paper cited this correct case but court found it was used to support a proposition inconsistent with the case's holding.
  7. Misrepresented: Case Law | Defense paper cited this correct case but court found it was used to support a proposition inconsistent with the case's holding.
  8. Misrepresented: Case Law | Defense paper cited this correct case but court found it was used to support a proposition inconsistent with the case's holding.
  9. Misrepresented: Case Law | Defense paper cited this correct case but court found it was used to support a proposition inconsistent with the case's holding.
  10. Misrepresented: Case Law | Defense paper cited this correct case but court found it was used to support a proposition inconsistent with the case's holding.
  11. Misrepresented: Case Law | Defense paper cited this correct case but court found it was used to support a proposition inconsistent with the case's holding.
  12. Misrepresented: Case Law | Defense paper cited this correct case but court found it was used to support a proposition inconsistent with the case's holding.
  13. Misrepresented: Case Law | Defense paper cited this correct case but court found it was used to support a proposition inconsistent with the case's holding.
  14. Misrepresented: Case Law | Defense paper cited this correct case but court found it was used to support a proposition inconsistent with the case's holding.
  15. Fabricated: Case Law | Defense papers cited this case but court could not locate the citation or match the caption.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Polanco v. Brooklyn Rose LLC?
The court scheduled a sanctions hearing to investigate defense counsel's submission of approximately 24 problematic citations, including 14 fabricated or unlocatable cases and 10 misrepresented authorities, which were identified in the defendant's opposition to a summary judgment motion.
Why does Polanco v. Brooklyn Rose LLC 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 Polanco v. Brooklyn Rose LLC?
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 Polanco v. Brooklyn Rose LLC 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.

Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C.SC New York · Jan 27, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityWurtenberg v. The City of New YorkSC New York · Jan 12, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityFacey v. Fisher, Liane et al.SC New York · Sep 15, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityKeefe v. BMakin Film LtdSC New York · Apr 24, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityKevin Krzeminski v. Janine McQuillanSC New York · Jul 6, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authoritySharei Torah v. HendelSC New York · Jun 1, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority