Taylor v. Cooper Power & Lighting Corp.
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
E.D. New York · Jun 13, 2025
What happened in this matter?
Outcome: No sanction: the magistrate judge found counsel's citation of Green v. Streater was a fabricated case and implausibly explained as a placeholder, but declined to recommend further action (R&R, ECF 71, n.4). "In Rutella's reply in support of his motion to vacate, he cites Green v. John H. Streater, Jr., 666 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1981). DE [69-1] at 8. When the Court was unable to locate Green or any case resembling it, the Court instructed Rutella's attorney, Kevin Krupnick, to either submit a copy of the case or show cause why he should not be sanctioned. See Electronic Order dated May 22, 2025.…
- Why the court cared
- The linked record identifies trial and records No sanction: the magistrate judge found counsel's citation of Green v. Streater was a fabricated case and implausibly explained as a placeholder, but declined to recommend further action (R&R, ECF 71, n.4). This page does not infer judicial reasoning beyond the source.
- Why it matters now
- The "placeholder" excuse does not survive scrutiny — never cite a case you have not read, and never lie to the court about why.
Why this matter is tracked
Outcome: No sanction: the magistrate judge found counsel's citation of Green v. Streater was a fabricated case and implausibly explained as a placeholder, but declined to recommend further action (R&R, ECF 71, n.4). "In Rutella's reply in support of his motion to vacate, he cites Green v. John H. Streater, Jr., 666 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1981). DE [69-1] at 8. When the Court was unable to locate Green or any case resembling it, the Court instructed Rutella's attorney, Kevin Krupnick, to either submit a copy of the case or show cause why he should not be sanctioned. See Electronic Order dated May 22, 2025. Krupnick admitted that he fabricated the Green case and claimed that he used it as a “placeholder” in a draft. DE [70-1]. It is implausible that an attorney would cite a case as specific as “Green v. John H. Streater, Jr., 666 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1981)” – which Krupnick admits does not exist – as a “placeholder” that he intended to replace. This is particularly true here, as Plaintiff had already cited the case that he subsequently claimed he intended to use. See DE [69-1] at 3 (citing Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., 485 U.S. 80 (1988)). Although Krupnick's conduct raises questions of his adherence to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (as he himself concedes), given the Court's recommendation that Rutella's motion to vacate be denied, the Court declines to recommend further action with respect to Rutella's misleading submission. "
The "placeholder" excuse does not survive scrutiny — never cite a case you have not read, and never lie to the court about why.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
No sanction: the magistrate judge found counsel's citation of Green v. Streater was a fabricated case and implausibly explained as a placeholder, but declined to recommend further action (R&R, ECF 71, n.4)
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Taylor v. Cooper Power & Lighting Corp.?
- Outcome: No sanction: the magistrate judge found counsel's citation of Green v. Streater was a fabricated case and implausibly explained as a placeholder, but declined to recommend further action (R&R, ECF 71, n.4). "In Rutella's reply in support of his motion to vacate, he cites Green v. John H. Streater, Jr., 666 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1981). DE [69-1] at 8. When the Court was unable to locate Green or any case resembling it, the Court instructed Rutella's attorney, Kevin Krupnick, to either submit a copy of the case or show cause why he should not be sanctioned. See Electronic Order dated May 22, 2025.…
- Why does Taylor v. Cooper Power & Lighting Corp. matter for legal AI risk?
- The "placeholder" excuse does not survive scrutiny — never cite a case you have not read, and never lie to the court about why.
- What does the public record establish about Taylor v. Cooper Power & Lighting Corp.?
- 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 Taylor v. Cooper Power & Lighting Corp. 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.
This record mentions Rule 11. See Rule 11 sanctions for AI-generated citations for the rule text and counts across the corpus.
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.