HomeCasesSuperb Motors Inc. et al. v. Anthony Deo et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Superb Motors Inc. et al. v. Anthony Deo et al.

E.D. New York · Apr 30, 2026

NY / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationscontracttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Opposing party identified 'In re Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 85 A.D.3d 1510 (3rd Dept. 2011)' as a nonexistent case; court treated it as an AI-generated fabricated citation. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. In his Response to the Order to Show Cause (available here), Counsel blamed the incident on virus and malwares allegedly impacting his computer.

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; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and contract involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary Sanction in E.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and contract involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary Sanction in E.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtE.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateApr 30, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeMonetary Sanction

Known amount$1,500

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

Monetary Sanction

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Opposing party identified 'In re Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 85 A.D.3d 1510 (3rd Dept. 2011)' as a nonexistent case; court treated it as an AI-generated fabricated citation.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court independently discovered 'In re Marcus, 491 F.2d 56, 60 (2nd Cir. 1974)' as a fabricated citation and cited it as additional evidence of AI-generated hallucinations.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Superb Motors Inc. et al. v. Anthony Deo et al.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Opposing party identified 'In re Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 85 A.D.3d 1510 (3rd Dept. 2011)' as a nonexistent case; court treated it as an AI-generated fabricated citation. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. In his Response to the Order to Show Cause (available here), Counsel blamed the incident on virus and malwares allegedly impacting his computer.
Why does Superb Motors Inc. et al. v. Anthony Deo et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and contract involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary Sanction in E.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Superb Motors Inc. et al. v. Anthony Deo 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 Superb Motors Inc. et al. v. Anthony Deo 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.

Polanco v. Himalayan Real Estate LLC, et al.E.D. New York · May 27, 2026same court · fake citations + contract Terrance Anthony Norris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.E.D. New York · May 6, 2026same court · fake citations + contract 1S REO Opportunity 1, LLC v. 223 Howard LLCE.D. New York · Feb 3, 2026same court · fake citations + contract Evgeny Yaroshevsky v. Karlin et al.E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2026same court · fake citations + contract Owens v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.E.D. New York · Jun 4, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Henri Giovani Morales Jimenez v. Christopher ShanahanE.D. New York · May 13, 2026same court · fake citations + trial

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

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

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtE.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateApr 30, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeMonetary Sanction

Known amount$1,500

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Opposing party identified 'In re Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 85 A.D.3d 1510 (3rd Dept. 2011)' as a nonexistent case; court treated it as an AI-generated fabricated citation.

Fabricated: Case Law | Court independently discovered 'In re Marcus, 491 F.2d 56, 60 (2nd Cir. 1974)' as a fabricated citation and cited it as additional evidence of AI-generated hallucinations.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Superb Motors Inc. et al. v. Anthony Deo et al.?

Why does Superb Motors Inc. et al. v. Anthony Deo et al. matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Superb Motors Inc. et al. v. Anthony Deo et al.?

Which source supports this Superb Motors Inc. et al. v. Anthony Deo 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.