Tameer Peak v. Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, et al.
S.D. New York · Nov 26, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court cautioned the pro se plaintiff to disclose and verify any use of generative AI in accordance with the court's Individual Rules and Practice in Civil Cases after identifying multiple fabricated case law citations in the plaintiff's filings.
- Why the court cared
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the quotation "[a] default is willful where the conduct of counsel or the litigant was egregious and was not satisfactorily explained" to Action S.A. v. Marc Rich & Co.; the court found that quotation does not appear in that opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff cited S.E.C. v. McNulty for the proposition that "waiting to retain counsel does not constitute good cause," but the court found no such quote in McNulty and noted the case addresses a different procedural posture. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff claimed Shady Records held that reputational harm is a form of prejudice; the court found Shady Records said nothing of reputational harm and was about different relief. || Fabricated: Case Law | The court observed that multiple case quotations in plaintiff's Nov. 12, 2025 opposition cannot be found in the cited cases and described them as likely AI 'hallucinated' citations.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: Plaintiff cautioned to disclose and verify any AI use.
Why this matter is tracked
In a contract dispute, the S.D. New York court addressed a pro se plaintiff's opposition letters containing multiple fabricated case law quotations. The court identified that the plaintiff attributed non-existent language to Action S.A. v. Marc Rich & Co., S.E.C. v. McNulty, and Shady Recs., Inc. v. Source Enters., Inc. The court noted these errors likely resulted from the use of generative AI. While the court did not impose formal sanctions, it explicitly cautioned the plaintiff regarding compliance with the court's Individual Rules and Practice in Civil Cases, which mandate the disclosure and independent verification of any content drafted using generative AI tools. The court maintained its prior order granting a stay of proceedings.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: Plaintiff cautioned to disclose and verify any AI use.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court identified the citations as likely AI-hallucinated.
Order issued by the district court following the plaintiff's submission of supplemental opposition letters regarding a previously granted stay of proceedings.
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.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the quotation "[a] default is willful where the conduct of counsel or the litigant was egregious and was not satisfactorily explained" to Action S.A. v. Marc Rich & Co.; the court found that quotation does not appear in that opinion.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff cited S.E.C. v. McNulty for the proposition that "waiting to retain counsel does not constitute good cause," but the court found no such quote in McNulty and noted the case addresses a different procedural posture.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff claimed Shady Records held that reputational harm is a form of prejudice; the court found Shady Records said nothing of reputational harm and was about different relief.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The court observed that multiple case quotations in plaintiff's Nov. 12, 2025 opposition cannot be found in the cited cases and described them as likely AI 'hallucinated' citations.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Tameer Peak v. Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, et al.?
- The court cautioned the pro se plaintiff to disclose and verify any use of generative AI in accordance with the court's Individual Rules and Practice in Civil Cases after identifying multiple fabricated case law citations in the plaintiff's filings.
- Why does Tameer Peak v. Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, 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: Plaintiff cautioned to disclose and verify any AI use.
- What does the public record establish about Tameer Peak v. Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, 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 Tameer Peak v. Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, 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.