Account information only. It is never shown to the AI client you connect, and it is kept apart from your research — which is not logged at all.
Your token is the key to the MCP: claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode take it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. It is also in your welcome email. Install instructions.
No token yet. One token per address, shown once and mailed to you with setup steps — claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode need it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. Install instructions.
Your MCP token. Anyone holding it can search on your subscription, so keep it off shared screens.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
The dedicated fast index: searches run on a machine nobody else queues for, with full-text highlighted excerpts. Higher MCP limits, and semantic search when it lands.
See ProThank you.
Manage billingDelete my account: email [email protected] and it is done by hand, usually the same day. (Self-serve deletion is not built yet.)
Free, and it takes a minute. Registered visitors skip the Cloudflare checks, and your MCP token for Claude or ChatGPT is issued at the end of this.
Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
Here is your MCP token. It is shown once — it is also in the welcome email we just sent you, with setup steps.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
That address already had a token, so we did not issue a second one — two live credentials for one mailbox is how people end up with a working laptop and a broken office machine. Your connector URL is in your inbox under “Your Syfert legal research connector URL”; if it is gone, call 904-383-7448.
17 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Wright v. Beziogreen2 sentences2014In our view, the Hearing Officer made reasonable and substantial efforts to contact the witness (see Matter of Smythe v Fischer, 101 AD3d 1280 , 1281 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 861 [2013]; Matter of Wright v Bezio, 64 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2009]). 2014In our view, the Hearing Officer made reasonable and substantial efforts to contact the witness (see Matter of Smythe v Fischer, 101 AD3d 1280 , 1281 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 861 [2013]; Matter of Wright v Bezio, 64 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2009]). | 2 | 2 |
Rosa v. Goordgreen2 sentences2008Accordingly, any alleged deficiency was remedied and there is no evidence that petitioner was prejudiced in any way (see Matter of Amaker v Selsky, 43 AD3d 547, 547-548 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 814 [2007]; Matter of Rosa v Goord, 14 AD3d 747, 748 [2005]). 2006Next, although the employee assistant was unable to produce every document that petitioner requested, the record reveals that the assistant provided petitioner with all of the relevant information he requested and the hearing officer adjourned the hearing to afford petitioner a full opportunity to review the documents to which he was entitled (see Matter of Rosa v Goord, 14 AD3d 747, 748 [2005]; Matter of Lam Trang v Goord, 283 AD2d 816, 817 [2001]). | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Rodriguez v. Prackgreen1 sentence2019Petitioner was not denied the opportunity to seek and receive the assistance of an attorney, inasmuch as the Hearing Officer adjourned the hearing for two weeks for that purpose ( see Matter of Baxton v Annucci , 142 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2016]). | 1 | 1 |
McFadden v. Prackgreen1 sentence2017Further, the record demonstrates that petitioner indicated that he understood the Hearing Officer and the charges against him and, when the hearing resumed three days later, there is no indication that petitioner was without his hearing aids, the issue was not raised again and the record reflects that he fully and knowledgeably participated in the proceedings (see Matter of McFadden v Prack, 120 AD3d 853, 854 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 908 [2014], lv dismissed 24 NY3d 930 [2014]; Matter of Medina v New York State Dept. of Corr. | 1 | 1 |
Bellamy v. Fischergreen1 sentence2016Because the documentary evidence was relevant to petitioner’s exculpatory explanation regarding the content of the letter that formed the basis of the misbehavior report, as well as to his defense of retaliation, and because we cannot say that petitioner was not prejudiced by the omission of the documents, the determination must be annulled (see Matter of Caldwell v Rock, 93 AD3d 1048, 1048 [2012]; Matter of Bellamy v Fischer, 87 AD3d 1217, 1218 [2011]; compare Matter of Mulcahy v *1168 Selsky, 295 AD2d 663, 663-664 [2002]). | 1 | 1 |
Caldwell v. Rockgreen1 sentence2016Because the documentary evidence was relevant to petitioner’s exculpatory explanation regarding the content of the letter that formed the basis of the misbehavior report, as well as to his defense of retaliation, and because we cannot say that petitioner was not prejudiced by the omission of the documents, the determination must be annulled (see Matter of Caldwell v Rock, 93 AD3d 1048, 1048 [2012]; Matter of Bellamy v Fischer, 87 AD3d 1217, 1218 [2011]; compare Matter of Mulcahy v *1168 Selsky, 295 AD2d 663, 663-664 [2002]). | 1 | 1 |
Mulcahy v. Selskygreen1 sentence2016Because the documentary evidence was relevant to petitioner’s exculpatory explanation regarding the content of the letter that formed the basis of the misbehavior report, as well as to his defense of retaliation, and because we cannot say that petitioner was not prejudiced by the omission of the documents, the determination must be annulled (see Matter of Caldwell v Rock, 93 AD3d 1048, 1048 [2012]; Matter of Bellamy v Fischer, 87 AD3d 1217, 1218 [2011]; compare Matter of Mulcahy v *1168 Selsky, 295 AD2d 663, 663-664 [2002]). | 1 | 1 |
Barnes v. Beziogreen1 sentence2012As such, we find that any inadequacies in petitioner’s assistance were remedied at the time of the hearing (see Matter of Barnes v Bezio, 86 AD3d 884, 885 [2011]; Matter of Tirado v Goord, 50 AD3d 1332, 1333 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
Tirado v. Goordgreen1 sentence2012As such, we find that any inadequacies in petitioner’s assistance were remedied at the time of the hearing (see Matter of Barnes v Bezio, 86 AD3d 884, 885 [2011]; Matter of Tirado v Goord, 50 AD3d 1332, 1333 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
Sierra v. Dubraygreen1 sentence2011As such, we find that any purported inadequacy on the part of the employee assistant was cured by the Hearing Officer at the disciplinary hearing and petitioner has demonstrated no prejudice resulting from the alleged inadequate assistance (see Matter of Fludd v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 62 AD3d 1149, 1152 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 705 [2009]; Matter of Sierra v Dubray, 58 AD3d 970, 971 [2009]; Matter of Burgess v Selsky, 50 AD3d 1347, 1348 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
Fludd v. New York State Department of Correctional Servicesgreen1 sentence2011As such, we find that any purported inadequacy on the part of the employee assistant was cured by the Hearing Officer at the disciplinary hearing and petitioner has demonstrated no prejudice resulting from the alleged inadequate assistance (see Matter of Fludd v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 62 AD3d 1149, 1152 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 705 [2009]; Matter of Sierra v Dubray, 58 AD3d 970, 971 [2009]; Matter of Burgess v Selsky, 50 AD3d 1347, 1348 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
Davila v. Selskygreen1 sentence2011Under the circumstances, reasonable efforts were made to locate these witnesses (see Matter of Tafari v Selsky, 76 AD3d 1144 [2010]; Matter of Davila v Selsky, 48 AD3d 846, 847 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
Benson v. Selskygreen1 sentence2011As such, we find that any purported inadequacy on the part of the employee assistant was cured by the Hearing Officer at the disciplinary hearing and petitioner has demonstrated no prejudice resulting from the alleged inadequate assistance (see Matter of Fludd v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 62 AD3d 1149, 1152 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 705 [2009]; Matter of Sierra v Dubray, 58 AD3d 970, 971 [2009]; Matter of Burgess v Selsky, 50 AD3d 1347, 1348 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
Callender v. Selskygreen1 sentence2008Under these circumstances, we find that reasonable efforts were made to locate petitioner’s witnesses (see Matter of Callender v Selsky, 41 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2007]; Matter of Folk v Goord, 29 AD3d 1182 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
Amaker v. Selskygreen1 sentence2008Accordingly, any alleged deficiency was remedied and there is no evidence that petitioner was prejudiced in any way (see Matter of Amaker v Selsky, 43 AD3d 547, 547-548 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 814 [2007]; Matter of Rosa v Goord, 14 AD3d 747, 748 [2005]). | 1 | 1 |
Seymour v. Goordgreen1 sentence2006Finally, petitioner was not improperly denied documents or witnesses inasmuch as the evidence in question was either irrelevant or unavailable (see Matter of Seymour v Goord, 24 AD3d 831, 832 [2005]). | 1 | 1 |
Trang v. Goordgreen1 sentence2006Next, although the employee assistant was unable to produce every document that petitioner requested, the record reveals that the assistant provided petitioner with all of the relevant information he requested and the hearing officer adjourned the hearing to afford petitioner a full opportunity to review the documents to which he was entitled (see Matter of Rosa v Goord, 14 AD3d 747, 748 [2005]; Matter of Lam Trang v Goord, 283 AD2d 816, 817 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
Hernandez v. Selskygreen1 sentence2004In any event, even if petitioner were correct, the Hearing Officer adjourned the hearing to give petitioner an opportunity to review the report, alleviating any alleged prejudice (see Matter of Hernandez v Selsky, supra at 831). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smythe v. Fischer
neutral
2 sentences2014In our view, the Hearing Officer made reasonable and substantial efforts to contact the witness (see Matter of Smythe v Fischer, 101 AD3d 1280 , 1281 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 861 [2013]; Matter of Wright v Bezio, 64 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2009]). 2014In our view, the Hearing Officer made reasonable and substantial efforts to contact the witness (see Matter of Smythe v Fischer, 101 AD3d 1280 , 1281 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 861 [2013]; Matter of Wright v Bezio, 64 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2009]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
McFadden v. Prack
green
1 sentence2017Further, the record demonstrates that petitioner indicated that he understood the Hearing Officer and the charges against him and, when the hearing resumed three days later, there is no indication that petitioner was without his hearing aids, the issue was not raised again and the record reflects that he fully and knowledgeably participated in the proceedings (see Matter of McFadden v Prack, 120 AD3d 853, 854 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 908 [2014], lv dismissed 24 NY3d 930 [2014]; Matter of Medina v New York State Dept. of Corr. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Jeckel v. New York State Department of Corrections
green
1 sentence2016Nor has petitioner demonstrated that he was denied access to his attorney, as the Hearing Officer adjourned the hearing to afford petitioner time to speak with his attorney (compare Matter of Jeckel v New York State Dept. of Corr., 111 AD3d 1180 , 1181 [2013]). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
MATTER OF PENNY B. v. Gary S.
green
1 sentence2011As such, we find that any purported inadequacy on the part of the employee assistant was cured by the Hearing Officer at the disciplinary hearing and petitioner has demonstrated no prejudice resulting from the alleged inadequate assistance (see Matter of Fludd v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 62 AD3d 1149, 1152 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 705 [2009]; Matter of Sierra v Dubray, 58 AD3d 970, 971 [2009]; Matter of Burgess v Selsky, 50 AD3d 1347, 1348 [2008]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Folk v. Goord
green
1 sentence2008Under these circumstances, we find that reasonable efforts were made to locate petitioner’s witnesses (see Matter of Callender v Selsky, 41 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2007]; Matter of Folk v Goord, 29 AD3d 1182 [2006]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Polanco v. Coughlin
green
1 sentence2004The record discloses that the Hearing Officer adjourned the hearing to investigate petitioner’s request and concluded, based on a combination of factors, that petitioner was sufficiently proficient in English and did not require the services of an interpreter (see Matter of Santiago v Goord, 253 AD2d 970 [1998]; Matter of Polanco v Coughlin, 196 AD2d 943 [1993]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Dalton v. Selsky
green
1 sentence2004We also find that the misbehavior reports, the items confiscated from the watch room, the testimony at the hearing and the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Dalton v Selsky, 6 AD3d 844 [2004]; Matter of Toro v Goord, 284 AD2d 764 [2001]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Santiago v. Goord
green
1 sentence2004The record discloses that the Hearing Officer adjourned the hearing to investigate petitioner’s request and concluded, based on a combination of factors, that petitioner was sufficiently proficient in English and did not require the services of an interpreter (see Matter of Santiago v Goord, 253 AD2d 970 [1998]; Matter of Polanco v Coughlin, 196 AD2d 943 [1993]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Toro v. Goord
green
1 sentence2004We also find that the misbehavior reports, the items confiscated from the watch room, the testimony at the hearing and the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Dalton v Selsky, 6 AD3d 844 [2004]; Matter of Toro v Goord, 284 AD2d 764 [2001]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Joyce v. Goord
green
1 sentence2002Under these circumstances, we conclude that the Hearing Officer properly excluded petitioner from the remainder of the hearing (see Matter of Beckles v Selsky, 273 AD2d 584, 585 , Iv denied 95 NY2d 764 ; Matter of Dumpson v McGinnis, 247 AD2d 804 ; Matter of Joyce v Goord, 246 AD2d 926, 927-928 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Dumpson v. McGinnis
green
1 sentence2002Under these circumstances, we conclude that the Hearing Officer properly excluded petitioner from the remainder of the hearing (see Matter of Beckles v Selsky, 273 AD2d 584, 585 , Iv denied 95 NY2d 764 ; Matter of Dumpson v McGinnis, 247 AD2d 804 ; Matter of Joyce v Goord, 246 AD2d 926, 927-928 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Hicks v. Selsky
green
1 sentence2002Under these circumstances, we conclude that the Hearing Officer properly excluded petitioner from the remainder of the hearing (see Matter of Beckles v Selsky, 273 AD2d 584, 585 , Iv denied 95 NY2d 764 ; Matter of Dumpson v McGinnis, 247 AD2d 804 ; Matter of Joyce v Goord, 246 AD2d 926, 927-928 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Bolling v. Coombe green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Aviles v. Scully green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Nieves v. Coughlin neutral | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Brown v. Coughlin green | 1 | 1993–1993 |