AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 25, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesZeng v. Chell
Evidence review: source unavailable. The linked source could not be retrieved during the latest evidence pass. This page preserves the structured corpus baseline and states the gap explicitly.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Zeng v. Chell

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); linked document: law.justia.com. What AI Vortex adds.

S.D. New York · Jul 9, 2024

NY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro setrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Southern District of New York denied Xiamin Zeng's motion to reconsider the judgment in her civil-rights action against New York City officials. The court identified citations that did not support the propositions advanced, quotations absent from cited cases, and one nonexistent judicial opinion. Because Zeng was pro se and the case was otherwise being dismissed, the court warned rather than opening a separate inquiry.

Why the court cared
The linked record identifies pro se and trial and records Warning. This page does not infer judicial reasoning beyond the source.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and trial involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

The Southern District of New York denied Xiamin Zeng's motion to reconsider the judgment in her civil-rights action against New York City officials. The court identified citations that did not support the propositions advanced, quotations absent from cited cases, and one nonexistent judicial opinion. Because Zeng was pro se and the case was otherwise being dismissed, the court warned rather than opening a separate inquiry.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and trial involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtS.D. New York
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateJul 9, 2024
NO
AI toolNo tool named in source
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Zeng v. Chell?
The Southern District of New York denied Xiamin Zeng's motion to reconsider the judgment in her civil-rights action against New York City officials. The court identified citations that did not support the propositions advanced, quotations absent from cited cases, and one nonexistent judicial opinion. Because Zeng was pro se and the case was otherwise being dismissed, the court warned rather than opening a separate inquiry.
Why does Zeng v. Chell matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and trial involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Zeng v. Chell?
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a legal-document or docket mirror. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Zeng v. Chell summary?
The recorded source is law.justia.com. It is classified as docket or legal-document mirror; 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.

Cooper v. John Doe County Court Clerk et al.S.D. New York · Oct 5, 2026same court · pro se + trialSexton v. Department of Homeless Services, et al.S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2026same court · pro se + trialPhilippeaux v. United States, et al.S.D. New York · Sep 8, 2026same court · pro se + trialAndrea K. Tantaros v. Fox News Network, LLC, et al.S.D. New York · Mar 27, 2026same court · pro se + trialSaregama India Ltd. v. B.A., et al.S.D. New York · Dec 3, 2025same court · pro se + trialTijerino v. Spotify USA Inc.S.D. New York · Sep 29, 2026same court · pro se + trial

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

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.