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.
14 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cohen v. Suffolk County Board of Electionsgreen2 sentences2013The weighted voting procedure used at the meeting was required by statute (see § 2-104 [1]; see generally Cohen, 83 AD3d at 1063-1064 ), and the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the redistricting plan was a CPLR article 78 proceeding, not a proceeding pursuant to article 16 of the Election Law (see generally Matter of Munnelly v Newkirk, 262 AD2d 781, 782 [1999], affd 93 NY2d 960 [1999]; Matter of Essenberg v Kresky, 265 AD2d 664, 666-667 [1999]). 2013The weighted voting procedure used at the meeting was required by statute (see § 2-104 [1]; see generally Cohen, 83 AD3d at 1063-1064 ), and the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the redistricting plan was a CPLR article 78 proceeding, not a proceeding pursuant to article 16 of the Election Law (see generally Matter of Munnelly v Newkirk, 262 AD2d 781, 782 [1999], affd 93 NY2d 960 [1999]; Matter of Essenberg v Kresky, 265 AD2d 664, 666-667 [1999]). | 3 | 3 |
Munnelly v. Newkirkgreen2 sentences2013The weighted voting procedure used at the meeting was required by statute (see § 2-104 [1]; see generally Cohen, 83 AD3d at 1063-1064 ), and the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the redistricting plan was a CPLR article 78 proceeding, not a proceeding pursuant to article 16 of the Election Law (see generally Matter of Munnelly v Newkirk, 262 AD2d 781, 782 [1999], affd 93 NY2d 960 [1999]; Matter of Essenberg v Kresky, 265 AD2d 664, 666-667 [1999]). 2013The weighted voting procedure used at the meeting was required by statute (see § 2-104 [1]; see generally Cohen, 83 AD3d at 1063-1064 ), and the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the redistricting plan was a CPLR article 78 proceeding, not a proceeding pursuant to article 16 of the Election Law (see generally Matter of Munnelly v Newkirk, 262 AD2d 781, 782 [1999], affd 93 NY2d 960 [1999]; Matter of Essenberg v Kresky, 265 AD2d 664, 666-667 [1999]). | 3 | 3 |
MATTER OF MUNNELLY v. Newkirkgreen2 sentences2013The weighted voting procedure used at the meeting was required by statute (see § 2-104 [1]; see generally Cohen, 83 AD3d at 1063-1064 ), and the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the redistricting plan was a CPLR article 78 proceeding, not a proceeding pursuant to article 16 of the Election Law (see generally Matter of Munnelly v Newkirk, 262 AD2d 781, 782 [1999], affd 93 NY2d 960 [1999]; Matter of Essenberg v Kresky, 265 AD2d 664, 666-667 [1999]). 2013The weighted voting procedure used at the meeting was required by statute (see § 2-104 [1]; see generally Cohen, 83 AD3d at 1063-1064 ), and the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the redistricting plan was a CPLR article 78 proceeding, not a proceeding pursuant to article 16 of the Election Law (see generally Matter of Munnelly v Newkirk, 262 AD2d 781, 782 [1999], affd 93 NY2d 960 [1999]; Matter of Essenberg v Kresky, 265 AD2d 664, 666-667 [1999]). | 3 | 3 |
Essenberg v. Kreskygreen2 sentences2013The weighted voting procedure used at the meeting was required by statute (see § 2-104 [1]; see generally Cohen, 83 AD3d at 1063-1064 ), and the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the redistricting plan was a CPLR article 78 proceeding, not a proceeding pursuant to article 16 of the Election Law (see generally Matter of Munnelly v Newkirk, 262 AD2d 781, 782 [1999], affd 93 NY2d 960 [1999]; Matter of Essenberg v Kresky, 265 AD2d 664, 666-667 [1999]). 2013The weighted voting procedure used at the meeting was required by statute (see § 2-104 [1]; see generally Cohen, 83 AD3d at 1063-1064 ), and the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the redistricting plan was a CPLR article 78 proceeding, not a proceeding pursuant to article 16 of the Election Law (see generally Matter of Munnelly v Newkirk, 262 AD2d 781, 782 [1999], affd 93 NY2d 960 [1999]; Matter of Essenberg v Kresky, 265 AD2d 664, 666-667 [1999]). | 2 | 3 |
Gress v. Browngreen2 sentences2013Petitioners may not use the Election Law to advance an otherwise time-barred CPLR article 78 claim (see generally Gress v Brown, 20 NY3d 957, 959-960 [2012]). 2013Petitioners may not use the Election Law to advance an otherwise time-barred CPLR article 78 claim (see generally Gress v Brown, 20 NY3d 957, 959-960 [2012]). | 2 | 3 |
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2011Plaintiffs challenges involve constitutional questions, as well as the meaning of various sections of County Law article 18-B (see Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143, 150 [1983], cert denied 464 US 993 [1983]; Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v City of New York, 276 NY 198, 206 [1937]). 2011We also reject defendants’ contention that the declaratory judgment cause of action is not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the ACP Plan. -4- 1275 CA 11-00086 Plaintiff’s challenges involve constitutional questions, as well as the meaning of various sections of County Law article 18-B (see Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143, 150 , cert denied 464 US 993 ; Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v City of New York, 276 NY 198, 206 ). | 1 | 2 |
Morgenthau v. Erlbaumgreen2 sentences2011Plaintiffs challenges involve constitutional questions, as well as the meaning of various sections of County Law article 18-B (see Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143, 150 [1983], cert denied 464 US 993 [1983]; Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v City of New York, 276 NY 198, 206 [1937]). 2011We also reject defendants’ contention that the declaratory judgment cause of action is not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the ACP Plan. -4- 1275 CA 11-00086 Plaintiff’s challenges involve constitutional questions, as well as the meaning of various sections of County Law article 18-B (see Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143, 150 , cert denied 464 US 993 ; Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v City of New York, 276 NY 198, 206 ). | 1 | 2 |
Greystone Mgmt. Corp. v. Conciliation & Appeals Bd. of the City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2000Corp. v Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 62 NY2d 763, 765 [1984]). | 1 | 1 |
Koslow v. Morrisongreen1 sentence1982(Matter of Koslow v Morrison, 4 Misc 2d 158, 163, citing Matter of Bernoff v Amoroso, 188 Misc 845, 846 .) The court holds that the petition brought under CPLR article 78 is an appropriate procedural vehicle to test the performance or nonperformance of official duties. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
County of Rockland v. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
green
2 sentences2011Plaintiffs challenges involve constitutional questions, as well as the meaning of various sections of County Law article 18-B (see Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143, 150 [1983], cert denied 464 US 993 [1983]; Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v City of New York, 276 NY 198, 206 [1937]). 2011We also reject defendants’ contention that the declaratory judgment cause of action is not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the ACP Plan. -4- 1275 CA 11-00086 Plaintiff’s challenges involve constitutional questions, as well as the meaning of various sections of County Law article 18-B (see Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143, 150 , cert denied 464 US 993 ; Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v City of New York, 276 NY 198, 206 ). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Press v. County of Monroe
green
2 sentences1993Although a declaratory judgment action is the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of a legislative enactment (see, Press v County of Monroe, 50 NY2d 695 ; Axelrod v New York State Teachers’ Retirement Sys., 154 AD2d 827 ), a CPLR article 78 proceeding is proper when determining whether a legislative enactment has been applied in an unconstitutional manner (see, Matter of Top Tile Bldg. 1989Since it is well settled that a declaratory judgment action is the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of a statute (see, Press v County of Monroe, 50 NY2d 695, 702 ), Supreme Court incorrectly characterized plaintiffs’ allegations as a CPLR article 78 proceeding. | 2 | 1989–1993 |
Charwat v. Kustas
neutral
1 sentence2024"The appropriate vehicle to review allegations sounding in improper administrative determinations and actions by [governmental agencies] is a CPLR article 78 proceeding" ( Charwat v Kustas , 233 AD2d 288, 288 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
James v. Alderton Dock Yards, Ltd.
green
1 sentence1997Notwithstanding that a declaratory judgment action is the appropriate procedural vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance (see, e.g., Board of Educ. v Gootnick, 49 NY2d 683 ), in this case it is premature to attempt to determine the constitutionality of the challenged ordinance insofar as the plaintiffs may obtain adequate relief in the event that an actual controversy related to the enforcement of the ordinance may one day arise (see, James v Alderton Dock Yards, 256 NY 298 ; Cherry v Koch, 126 AD2d 346 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Cherry v. Koch
green
1 sentence1997Notwithstanding that a declaratory judgment action is the appropriate procedural vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance (see, e.g., Board of Educ. v Gootnick, 49 NY2d 683 ), in this case it is premature to attempt to determine the constitutionality of the challenged ordinance insofar as the plaintiffs may obtain adequate relief in the event that an actual controversy related to the enforcement of the ordinance may one day arise (see, James v Alderton Dock Yards, 256 NY 298 ; Cherry v Koch, 126 AD2d 346 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Board of Education v. Gootnick
green
1 sentence1997Notwithstanding that a declaratory judgment action is the appropriate procedural vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance (see, e.g., Board of Educ. v Gootnick, 49 NY2d 683 ), in this case it is premature to attempt to determine the constitutionality of the challenged ordinance insofar as the plaintiffs may obtain adequate relief in the event that an actual controversy related to the enforcement of the ordinance may one day arise (see, James v Alderton Dock Yards, 256 NY 298 ; Cherry v Koch, 126 AD2d 346 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Top Tile Building Supply Corp. v. New York State Tax Commission
green
1 sentence1993Supply Corp. v New York State Tax Commn., 94 AD2d 885 , appeal dismissed 60 NY2d 653 , appeal dismissed 465 US 1095 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Top Tile Building Supply Corp. v. New York State Tax Commission
green
1 sentence1993Supply Corp. v New York State Tax Commn., 94 AD2d 885 , appeal dismissed 60 NY2d 653 , appeal dismissed 465 US 1095 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Axelrod v. New York State Teachers' Retirement System
green
1 sentence1993Although a declaratory judgment action is the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of a legislative enactment (see, Press v County of Monroe, 50 NY2d 695 ; Axelrod v New York State Teachers’ Retirement Sys., 154 AD2d 827 ), a CPLR article 78 proceeding is proper when determining whether a legislative enactment has been applied in an unconstitutional manner (see, Matter of Top Tile Bldg. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Top Tile Building Supply Corp. v. New York State Tax Commission
neutral
1 sentence1993Supply Corp. v New York State Tax Commn., 94 AD2d 885 , appeal dismissed 60 NY2d 653 , appeal dismissed 465 US 1095 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Kovarsky v. Housing & Development Administration
green
1 sentence1988Admin., 31 NY2d 184, 191 ; Matter of Overhill Bldg. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Blank v. Premium Gas Service, Inc.
green
1 sentence1982Although this court is of the opinion that a declaratory judgment action rather than an article 7 proceeding would be the appropriate vehicle for a constitutional attack upon a statute, Matter of Harley v Assessor of Town of Hoosick ( 80 AD2d 929 ) holds that an article 7 proceeding is a proper procedural vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of a section of the Real Property Tax Law. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Artis v. Keegan
green
1 sentence1982(Artis v Keegan, 77 Misc 2d 638 ; Matter of Davis v Shep ard, 92 Misc 2d 181 .) The first objection in point of law is disallowed. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Davis v. Shepard
green
1 sentence1982(Artis v Keegan, 77 Misc 2d 638 ; Matter of Davis v Shep ard, 92 Misc 2d 181 .) The first objection in point of law is disallowed. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Bernoff v. Amoroso
green
1 sentence1982(Matter of Koslow v Morrison, 4 Misc 2d 158, 163, citing Matter of Bernoff v Amoroso, 188 Misc 845, 846 .) The court holds that the petition brought under CPLR article 78 is an appropriate procedural vehicle to test the performance or nonperformance of official duties. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Greene v. Smith
green
1 sentence1976The subject is ordered held 15 months with an up-to-date psychiatric report.” CPLR article 78, not habeas corpus, is the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the validity of an administrative act or failure to act (Matter of Greene v Smith, 52 AD2d 292 , app dsmd 40 NY2d 826 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Watkins v. Caldwell
green
1 sentence1976However, treating relator’s petition as though it were an article 78 proceeding (CPLR 103, subd [c]), we find that the reasons given for denial of parole, other than adverse community reaction, were meaningful and a fair statement of a reasonable basis for denial of relator’s release on parole (see Matter of Watkins v Caldwell, 54 AD2d 42 [Sept. 24, 1976]). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People Ex Rel. Ward v. Smith
neutral
1 sentence1976The subject is ordered held 15 months with an up-to-date psychiatric report.” CPLR article 78, not habeas corpus, is the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the validity of an administrative act or failure to act (Matter of Greene v Smith, 52 AD2d 292 , app dsmd 40 NY2d 826 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.