Tameer Peak v. Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, et al.
S.D. New York · Nov 26, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- S.D. New York
- Record ID
- tameer-peak-v-onika-tanya-maraj-petty-et-al-2025-11-26
- Observed outcome
- The court maintained a previously ordered stay of proceedings and issued a formal caution to the plaintiff regarding the mandatory disclosure and verification of AI-generated content.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_citations
- Fabricated_case_law_quotations
- Misrepresented_legal_authority
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order issued by the district court following the plaintiff's submission of supplemental opposition letters regarding a previously granted stay of proceedings.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court identified the citations as likely AI-hallucinated.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.