HomeCasesSaregama India Ltd. v. B.A., et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Saregama India Ltd. v. B.A., et al.

S.D. New York · Dec 3, 2025

NY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Reply cited 'Khurana v. State of N.Y., No. 16-cv ... 2019 WL 1430202' — Court observed this cited case does not exist.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Reply cited 'Khurana v. State of N.Y., No. 16-cv ... 2019 WL 1430202' — Court observed this cited case does not exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | Reply attributed quotations to F.I. duPont, Glore Forgan & Co. v. Chen that the Court found not to appear in that opinion (false quotation). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Reply cited Bossuk v. Steinberg and S.E.C. v. McNulty for propositions the Court found they do not support (misrepresentation of precedent). || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Reply misquoted statutes including CPLR § 2103(f)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1); Court noted statutory misquotations.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Reply cited 'Khurana v. State of N.Y., No. 16-cv ... 2019 WL 1430202' — Court observed this cited case does not exist.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtS.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateDec 3, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Reply cited 'Khurana v. State of N.Y., No. 16-cv ... 2019 WL 1430202' — Court observed this cited case does not exist.
False Quotes: Case Law | Reply attributed quotations to F.I. duPont, Glore Forgan & Co. v. Chen that the Court found not to appear in that opinion (false quotation).
Misrepresented: Case Law | Reply cited Bossuk v. Steinberg and S.E.C. v. McNulty for propositions the Court found they do not support (misrepresentation of precedent).
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Reply misquoted statutes including CPLR § 2103(f)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1); Court noted statutory misquotations.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Saregama India Ltd. v. B.A., et al.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Reply cited 'Khurana v. State of N.Y., No. 16-cv ... 2019 WL 1430202' — Court observed this cited case does not exist.
Why does Saregama India Ltd. v. B.A., 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: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Saregama India Ltd. v. B.A., 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 Saregama India Ltd. v. B.A., et al. summary?: The recorded source is websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; 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.

Sana Hazina Butler v. Fidelity Management & Research Company LLCS.D. New York · Apr 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Tameer Peak v. Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, et al.S.D. New York · Nov 26, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USAS.D. New York · Jun 25, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Fecteau v. Safety National Casualty CorporationS.D. New York · Mar 25, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Avalon Holdings Corp. v. Guy GentileS.D. New York · Jan 22, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd. et al.S.D. New York · Dec 17, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes

Linked evidence record

websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com

Secondary or other linked source
The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtS.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateDec 3, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Reply cited 'Khurana v. State of N.Y., No. 16-cv ... 2019 WL 1430202' — Court observed this cited case does not exist.

False Quotes: Case Law | Reply attributed quotations to F.I. duPont, Glore Forgan & Co. v. Chen that the Court found not to appear in that opinion (false quotation).

Misrepresented: Case Law | Reply cited Bossuk v. Steinberg and S.E.C. v. McNulty for propositions the Court found they do not support (misrepresentation of precedent).

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Reply misquoted statutes including CPLR § 2103(f)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1); Court noted statutory misquotations.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Saregama India Ltd. v. B.A., et al.?

Fabricated: Case Law | Reply cited 'Khurana v. State of N.Y., No. 16-cv ... 2019 WL 1430202' — Court observed this cited case does not exist.

Why does Saregama India Ltd. v. B.A., 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: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

What does the public record establish about Saregama India Ltd. v. B.A., et al.?

Which source supports this Saregama India Ltd. v. B.A., et al. summary?

The recorded source is websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.