Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty v. Thomas Fogarty et al.
S.D. New York · Apr 29, 2026
NY / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationscivil rightstrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a Westlaw/database identifier and party name that do not match any opinion on the cited topic; the citation corresponded to an unrelated docket or jurisdiction. Outcome: Monetary Sanction; Order to Notice Client.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Monetary Sanction; Order to Notice Client; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and civil rights involving LexisNexis with Monetary Sanction; Order to Notice Client in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a Westlaw/database identifier and party name that do not match any opinion on the cited topic; the citation corresponded to an unrelated docket or jurisdiction. Outcome: Monetary Sanction; Order to Notice Client.
Operational lesson
This matter connects fake citations and civil rights involving LexisNexis with Monetary Sanction; Order to Notice Client in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
CourtS.D. New York
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateApr 29, 2026
LE
AI toolLexisNexis
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary Sanction; Order to Notice Client
Known amount$2,500
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
LexisNexis is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Monetary Sanction; Order to Notice Client
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a Westlaw/database identifier and party name that do not match any opinion on the cited topic; the citation corresponded to an unrelated docket or jurisdiction.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Citation to a Bank of America decision that the Court could not find; reporter citation pointed to an unrelated case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a county appellate decision at a reporter citation that points to an unrelated matter; the Court could not find the cited case supporting the argument.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a 1978 First Department case that the Court could not locate; the reporter citation corresponded to an unrelated case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a Westlaw identifier and case name asserting support for service-on-clerk authority; Court found no opinion at the cited identifier and existing cases by that name did not support the proposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a non-existent case to support nail-and-mail service; Court could not locate any case by this name and reporter points to an unrelated matter.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a 1949 New York case by name and reporter citation that do not correspond to any case supporting the proposition; reporter number pointed to unrelated decisions.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty v. Thomas Fogarty et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a Westlaw/database identifier and party name that do not match any opinion on the cited topic; the citation corresponded to an unrelated docket or jurisdiction. Outcome: Monetary Sanction; Order to Notice Client.
- Why does Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty v. Thomas Fogarty et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and civil rights involving LexisNexis with Monetary Sanction; Order to Notice Client in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty v. Thomas Fogarty 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 Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty v. Thomas Fogarty 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.