COURT EVIDENCE REPORT

SC New York

A print-ready review packet of the issues, recorded responses, participant context, and source-linked matters currently associated with this profile.

Matched records41

Source linked100%

Known USD amount total$102,504

Recorded rangeMay 30, 2024 – Sep 9, 2026

EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

What kinds of legal AI issues and responses appear in SC New York?

AI Vortex currently links 41 source-linked public matters associated with SC New York. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (37), Misrepresented authority (19) and Fabricated or altered quotations (14). Recorded responses and outcomes include No adjudicated consequence recorded (14), Monetary sanction (10) and Warning or admonishment (9). Categories can overlap within the same matter, and these counts describe this public corpus rather than the overall behavior or sanction rate of the court.

Every distribution below links to the exact matching records. This report does not convert corpus counts into a behavioral prediction.

OBSERVED ISSUE MIX

What problems appear in these records?

Fabricated authorities37 · 90.2%Misrepresented authority19 · 46.3%Fabricated or altered quotations14 · 34.1%

Issue categories can overlap within one matter.

RECORDED RESPONSES

How did courts or authorities respond?

No adjudicated consequence recorded14 · 34.1%Monetary sanction10 · 24.4%Warning or admonishment9 · 22%Filing or pleading struck4 · 9.8%Order to show cause3 · 7.3%Professional discipline3 · 7.3%

A recorded response does not imply that every matter ended in a sanction.

PARTICIPANT CONTEXT

Who appears in these matters?

Lawyer26 · 63.4%Pro Se Litigant15 · 36.6%

MATTER CONTEXT

Which practice areas are represented?

Contract16 · 39%Tort12 · 29.3%Administrative4 · 9.8%Employment2 · 4.9%Landlord Tenant1 · 2.4%

UNDERLYING EVIDENCE

Selected public records behind this report

Showing 12 of 41

Sep 9, 2026Parvaz v. KNJ Realty, Inc.SC New YorkUnidentifiedSource

Sep 9, 2026Youssian v Village of Kings PointSC New YorkSpellbook AISource

Aug 7, 2026Brown v. Real Estate Capital of America et al.SC New YorkAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Aug 4, 2026Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. KaloidisSC New YorkClaude and other generative AI platformsSource

Jul 22, 2026Rodriguez v. Time Warner EntertainmentSC New YorkNo tool named in sourceSource

Jul 6, 2026Kevin Krzeminski v. Janine McQuillanSC New YorkUnidentifiedSource

Jun 16, 2026Polanco v. Brooklyn Rose LLCSC New YorkUnidentifiedSource

Jun 12, 2026Vargas v. MTA Bus Co.SC New YorkNo tool named in sourceSource

Jun 1, 2026Sharei Torah v. HendelSC New YorkAI (implied, unspecified)Source

May 28, 2026Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. STI-NY, LLCSC New YorkUnidentifiedSource

May 12, 2026Gully v VargheseSC New YorkAI (implied, unspecified)Source

May 5, 2026DOE, J. et al v. The Trustees of Columbia UniversitySC New YorkUnidentifiedSource

Open all matching records

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

Scope, traceability, and limits

This report groups existing structured public-record fields. For judges, the counts describe matters in which that person is recorded as a decision-maker; they do not establish general practices, sanction rates, or future behavior.

The complete docket, later history, local rules, standing orders, and controlling primary materials remain authoritative.

CONNECTED INTELLIGENCE

Related corpus profiles

United States41 shared records New York41 shared records Fake Citations37 shared records Misrepresented Authority19 shared records None Adjudicated14 shared records Fabricated Quotes14 shared records

Cite this page

Bluebook: AI Vortex, SC New York Evidence Report, Legal AI Risk Tracker (updated Oct. 26, 2026), https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/courts/sc-new-york/report (last visited Oct. 26, 2026).
APA: AI Vortex. (2026, October 26). SC New York Evidence Report. Legal AI Risk Tracker. Retrieved October 26, 2026, from https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/courts/sc-new-york/report
URL: https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/courts/sc-new-york/report (accessed 2026-10-26)

Cites the AI Vortex page, not the underlying decision; cite the court's own document for the holding.