AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 11, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 9, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesWurtenberg v. The City of New York
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Wurtenberg v. The City of New York

SC New York · Jan 12, 2026

NY / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authoritytorttrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a formal warning to plaintiff's counsel regarding the submission of AI-generated hallucinations and misrepresented legal precedents. Although the court found the conduct improper and attributed it to generative AI misuse, it declined to impose monetary or professional sanctions because no formal motion for sanctions had been filed by the defendants.

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

In a summary judgment motion, the Supreme Court of New York addressed plaintiff's opposition papers, which contained non-existent legal authority and mischaracterized existing case law. The court attributed these errors to the misuse of generative artificial intelligence. While the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, it declined to impose formal sanctions because the defendants had not filed a formal motion for such relief. However, the court issued a formal warning to plaintiff's counsel, emphasizing the professional and ethical obligation to verify all AI-generated content before submission to the court. The court explicitly cautioned that any future failure to adhere to these verification standards would result in the imposition of sanctions.

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
Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtSC New York
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateJan 12, 2026
GE
AI toolgenerative artificial intelligence program
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeSummary judgment granted for defendants; plaintiff's counsel received a formal judicial warning regarding AI verification obligations.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionFormal judicial warning issued to counsel.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

Court identified misuse of a generative artificial intelligence program.

Procedural posture

Summary judgment motion decided on January 12, 2026, in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County.

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
The court issued a formal warning to plaintiff's counsel regarding the submission of AI-generated hallucinations and misrepresented legal precedents. Although the court found the conduct improper and attributed it to generative AI misuse, it declined to impose monetary or professional sanctions because no formal motion for sanctions had been filed by the defendants.
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 authorityCassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C.SC New York · Jan 27, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityFacey v. Fisher, Liane et al.SC New York · Sep 15, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityKeefe v. BMakin Film LtdSC New York · Apr 24, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityRodriguez v. Time Warner EntertainmentSC New York · Jul 22, 2026same court · fake citations + tortKevin Krzeminski v. Janine McQuillanSC New York · Jul 6, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority