Polanco v. Himalayan Real Estate LLC, et al.
E.D. New York · May 27, 2026 · Hector Gonzalez
What happened in this matter?
The Court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant for citing a fictitious Supreme Court opinion. The judge cautioned that continued reliance on nonexistent legal authority in future filings could lead to sanctions, including monetary penalties, the striking of submissions, or the imposition of filing restrictions.
- Why the court cared
- The Court reasoned that citing fake opinions is an abuse of the adversary system that wastes judicial resources and harms the legal system's reputation. It noted that while pro se litigants are granted leniency, they are not excused from the obligation to cite genuine legal authorities.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates judicial intolerance for fake citations in pro se filings. It serves as a reminder that courts will actively police the integrity of legal research, even when performed by non-lawyers, and will impose escalating sanctions for the use of fabricated precedents.
Why this matter is tracked
In a pro se action, Plaintiff Alfred Polanco filed a complaint alleging constitutional and property-related violations. The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. During the proceedings, the Court identified that the Plaintiff cited a fictitious U.S. Supreme Court opinion, "Moore v. Alliance Credit Union," to support arguments regarding fiat currency and foreclosure. The Court explicitly warned the Plaintiff that citing nonexistent legal authority is an abuse of the adversary system and that future filings containing fake citations may result in sanctions, including monetary penalties, the striking of submissions, or filing restrictions. The Court emphasized that while pro se litigants receive liberal construction, they are not permitted to cite fake authorities.
This case illustrates judicial intolerance for fake citations in pro se filings. It serves as a reminder that courts will actively police the integrity of legal research, even when performed by non-lawyers, and will impose escalating sanctions for the use of fabricated precedents.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
The Court dismissed the pro se complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, while simultaneously issuing a warning regarding the use of fake legal citations.
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent U.S. Supreme Court opinion, "Moore v. Alliance Credit Union," claiming it held foreclosures based on fiat currency unconstitutional; the Court found the opinion fictitious and warned against citing fake authorities.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Polanco v. Himalayan Real Estate LLC, et al.?
- The Court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant for citing a fictitious Supreme Court opinion. The judge cautioned that continued reliance on nonexistent legal authority in future filings could lead to sanctions, including monetary penalties, the striking of submissions, or the imposition of filing restrictions.
- Why does Polanco v. Himalayan Real Estate LLC, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates judicial intolerance for fake citations in pro se filings. It serves as a reminder that courts will actively police the integrity of legal research, even when performed by non-lawyers, and will impose escalating sanctions for the use of fabricated precedents.
- What does the public record establish about Polanco v. Himalayan Real Estate LLC, et al.?
- 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 Polanco v. Himalayan Real Estate LLC, 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.