Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty v. Thomas Fogarty et al.

Court
S.D. New York
Jurisdiction
USA
Decided
2026-04-29
AI tool
LexisNexis
Outcome
Monetary Sanction; Order to Notice Client
Monetary penalty
2500 USD

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a Westlaw/database identifier and party name that do not match any opinion on the cited topic; the citation corresponded to an unrelated docket or jurisdiction. || Fabricated: Case Law | Citation to a Bank of America decision that the Court could not find; reporter citation pointed to an unrelated case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a county appellate decision at a reporter citation that points to an unrelated matter; the Court could not find the cited case supporting the argument. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a 1978 First Department case that the Court could not locate; the reporter citation corresponded to an unrelated case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a Westlaw identifier and case name asserting support for service-on-clerk authority; Court found no opinion at the cited identifier and existing cases by that name did not support the proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a non-existent case to support nail-and-mail service; Court could not locate any case by this name and reporter points to an unrelated matter. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a 1949 New York case by name and reporter citation that do not correspond to any case supporting the proposition; reporter number pointed to unrelated decisions.

Sanction teardown · S.D. New York, USA · 2026-04-29

Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty v. Thomas Fogarty et al.

What happened

In S.D. New York, USA, a filing relied on LexisNexis to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Counsel cited a Westlaw/database identifier and party name that do not match any opinion on the cited topic; the citation corresponded to an unrelated docket or jurisdiction.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Citation to a Bank of America decision that the Court could not find; reporter citation pointed to an unrelated case.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Counsel cited a county appellate decision at a reporter citation that points to an unrelated matter; the Court could not find the cited case supporting the argument.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Counsel cited a 1978 First Department case that the Court could not locate; the reporter citation corresponded to an unrelated case.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Counsel cited a Westlaw identifier and case name asserting support for service-on-clerk authority; Court found no opinion at the cited identifier and existing cases by that name did not support the proposition.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Counsel cited a non-existent case to support nail-and-mail service; Court could not locate any case by this name and reporter points to an unrelated matter.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Counsel cited a 1949 New York case by name and reporter citation that do not correspond to any case supporting the proposition; reporter number pointed to unrelated decisions.

Which AI tool

LexisNexis. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Monetary Sanction; Order to Notice Client (monetary penalty: 2500 USD.)

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2045/Fogarty_v._Fogarty_USA_29_April_2026.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2045/Fogarty_v._Fogarty_USA_29_April_2026.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template