AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 26, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 23, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesSaregama India Ltd. v. B.A., et al.
Evidence review: source unavailable. The linked source could not be retrieved during the latest evidence pass. This page preserves the structured corpus baseline and states the gap explicitly.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

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

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Public opinion PDF mirror: Saregama India Ltd. v. Bharath Aiyer; linked document: websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com. What AI Vortex adds.

S.D. New York · Dec 3, 2025

NY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityNone Adjudicated
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
Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtS.D. New York
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateDec 3, 2025
NO
AI toolNo tool named in source
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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).
  4. 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 citationsTameer Peak v. Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, et al.S.D. New York · Nov 26, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsRomero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USAS.D. New York · Jun 25, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsFecteau v. Safety National Casualty CorporationS.D. New York · Mar 25, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsFlycatcher v. Affable Avenue (2)S.D. New York · Feb 5, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesAvalon Holdings Corp. v. Guy GentileS.D. New York · Jan 22, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.