HomeCasesWurtenberg v. The City of New York

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Wurtenberg v. The City of New York

SC New York · Jan 12, 2026

NY / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authoritytorttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's papers relied on non-existent legal authority (fabricated cases); court found these authorities did not exist and attributed them to misuse of generative AI. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's papers relied on non-existent legal authority (fabricated cases); court found these authorities did not exist and attributed them to misuse of generative AI. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited several existing cases that the court found did not stand for the propositions for which they were cited (misrepresented precedent).
Why it matters now: Courts now tie both fabrications and misrepresentations to a single genAI misuse finding; verify propositions, not just reporter strings.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Courts now tie both fabrications and misrepresentations to a single genAI misuse finding; verify propositions, not just reporter strings.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtSC New York

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateJan 12, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

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

Warning

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 | Plaintiff's papers relied on non-existent legal authority (fabricated cases); court found these authorities did not exist and attributed them to misuse of generative AI.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited several existing cases that the court found did not stand for the propositions for which they were cited (misrepresented precedent).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Wurtenberg v. The City of New York?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's papers relied on non-existent legal authority (fabricated cases); court found these authorities did not exist and attributed them to misuse of generative AI. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Wurtenberg v. The City of New York matter for legal AI risk?: Courts now tie both fabrications and misrepresentations to a single genAI misuse finding; verify propositions, not just reporter strings.
What does the public record establish about Wurtenberg v. The City of New York?: 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 Wurtenberg v. The City of New York 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. Brooklyn Rose LLCSC New York · Jun 16, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C.SC New York · Jan 27, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Facey v. Fisher, Liane et al.SC New York · Sep 15, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Keefe v. BMakin Film LtdSC New York · Apr 24, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Kevin Krzeminski v. Janine McQuillanSC New York · Jul 6, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Sharei Torah v. HendelSC New York · Jun 1, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority

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

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Courts now tie both fabrications and misrepresentations to a single genAI misuse finding; verify propositions, not just reporter strings.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's papers relied on non-existent legal authority (fabricated cases); court found these authorities did not exist and attributed them to misuse of generative AI.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited several existing cases that the court found did not stand for the propositions for which they were cited (misrepresented precedent).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Wurtenberg v. The City of New York?

Why does Wurtenberg v. The City of New York matter for legal AI risk?

Courts now tie both fabrications and misrepresentations to a single genAI misuse finding; verify propositions, not just reporter strings.

What does the public record establish about Wurtenberg v. The City of New York?

Which source supports this Wurtenberg v. The City of New York 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.