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.
9 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1987–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blindgreen1 sentence2017The next step in the analysis, under both McDonnell Douglas and the mixed motive framework, is to determine whether NYU has come forward with evidence of “legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support its employment decision” (Forrest, 3 NY3d at 305 [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Paynegreen1 sentence2016The court did not find, nor did the People volunteer, any specific race-neutral justification for the peremptory challenge that would have then required the court to proceed to the next step of the analysis (see People v Smocum, 99 NY2d at 423 ; People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 182 [1996]). | 1 | 1 |
Cooney v. Osgood Machinery, Inc.green1 sentence2009In the event that they are intended to regulate conduct, “such as standards of care,” the conflict of laws issue is typically resolved by applying the law of the place of the tort (Cooney v Osgood Mach., 81 NY2d 66, 72 [1993]; see Bodea, 286 AD2d at 9 ). | 1 | 1 |
Shehata v. Shehatagreen2 sentences2009In view of the .unrefuted evidence that the father disparaged the mother and failed to attend to the son’s known medical needs, and the son’s poor academic performance and fear of the father’s seizure disorder, 3 we find ample evidence of a change in circumstances necessitating reconsideration of the son’s best interests (see Posporelis v Posporelis, 41 AD3d at 988 ; Matter of Filippelli v Chant, 40 AD3d 1221, 1222 [2007]; Matter of Gutiy v Gutiy, 40 AD3d 1155, 1156 [2007]; Matter of Shehata v Shehata, 31 AD3d 773, 774 [2006]). 4 Turning to the next step of the analysis, the primary concern in 2009The relevant factors include stability for the child, the length of the original placement, the quality of the home environments, each parent’s past performance, rela tive fitness and ability to guide and provide for the child’s development—both intellectually and emotionally—and the child’s wishes (see Matter of Goldsmith v Goldsmith, 50 AD3d at 1191-1192; Matter of Shehata v Shehata, 31 AD3d at 774 ). | 1 | 1 |
Gutiy v. Gutiygreen2 sentences2009In view of the .unrefuted evidence that the father disparaged the mother and failed to attend to the son’s known medical needs, and the son’s poor academic performance and fear of the father’s seizure disorder, 3 we find ample evidence of a change in circumstances necessitating reconsideration of the son’s best interests (see Posporelis v Posporelis, 41 AD3d at 988 ; Matter of Filippelli v Chant, 40 AD3d 1221, 1222 [2007]; Matter of Gutiy v Gutiy, 40 AD3d 1155, 1156 [2007]; Matter of Shehata v Shehata, 31 AD3d 773, 774 [2006]). 4 Turning to the next step of the analysis, the primary concern in 2009In view of the .unrefuted evidence that the father disparaged the mother and failed to attend to the son’s known medical needs, and the son’s poor academic performance and fear of the father’s seizure disorder, 3 we find ample evidence of a change in circumstances necessitating reconsideration of the son’s best interests (see Posporelis v Posporelis, 41 AD3d at 988 ; Matter of Filippelli v Chant, 40 AD3d 1221, 1222 [2007]; Matter of Gutiy v Gutiy, 40 AD3d 1155, 1156 [2007]; Matter of Shehata v Shehata, 31 AD3d 773, 774 [2006]). 4 Turning to the next step of the analysis, the primary concern in | 1 | 1 |
Filippelli v. Chantgreen1 sentence2009In view of the .unrefuted evidence that the father disparaged the mother and failed to attend to the son’s known medical needs, and the son’s poor academic performance and fear of the father’s seizure disorder, 3 we find ample evidence of a change in circumstances necessitating reconsideration of the son’s best interests (see Posporelis v Posporelis, 41 AD3d at 988 ; Matter of Filippelli v Chant, 40 AD3d 1221, 1222 [2007]; Matter of Gutiy v Gutiy, 40 AD3d 1155, 1156 [2007]; Matter of Shehata v Shehata, 31 AD3d 773, 774 [2006]). 4 Turning to the next step of the analysis, the primary concern in | 1 | 1 |
Bodea v. TransNat Express, Inc.green2 sentences2009The next step in our analysis is to determine whether the conflicting laws are intended to regulate conduct or to allocate loss (see Bodea, 286 AD2d at 9 ). 2009In the event that they are intended to regulate conduct, “such as standards of care,” the conflict of laws issue is typically resolved by applying the law of the place of the tort (Cooney v Osgood Mach., 81 NY2d 66, 72 [1993]; see Bodea, 286 AD2d at 9 ). | 1 | 1 |
Motyka v. City of Amsterdamgreen2 sentences2004As in the case of an action against a private corporation, it is necessary to decide whether the Port Authority is under a duty to these plaintiffs, irrespective of sovereign immunity. ( See Florence v Goldberg , 44 NY2d 189 , 195 [1978]; Motyka v City of Amsterdam , 15 NY2d 134 [1965].) "Absent the existence and breach of such a duty, the abrogation of governmental immunity, in itself, affords little aid to a plaintiff seeking to cast a municipality in damages." ( Florence v Goldberg , 44 NY2d at 195.) Moreover, to establish liability against a municipality or government agency, the duty brea 2004As in the case of an action against a private corporation, it is necessary to decide whether the Port Authority is under a duty to these plaintiffs, irrespective of sovereign immunity. ( See Florence v Goldberg , 44 NY2d 189 , 195 [1978]; Motyka v City of Amsterdam , 15 NY2d 134 [1965].) "Absent the existence and breach of such a duty, the abrogation of governmental immunity, in itself, affords little aid to a plaintiff seeking to cast a municipality in damages." ( Florence v Goldberg , 44 NY2d at 195.) Moreover, to establish liability against a municipality or government agency, the duty brea | 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Smocum
green
1 sentence2016The court did not find, nor did the People volunteer, any specific race-neutral justification for the peremptory challenge that would have then required the court to proceed to the next step of the analysis (see People v Smocum, 99 NY2d at 423 ; People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 182 [1996]). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In re the Estate of Goldberg
neutral
1 sentence2012Unlike testamentary capacity with respect to wills, where the proponent of a will bears the burden of proving testamentary capacity, with a trust document, the burden of proving incapacity is on the one who asserts it (Matter of Goldberg, 153 Misc 2d 560 [1992], citing Matter of Obermeier, 150 AD2d 863 [1989]). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In re the Estate of Obermeier
green
1 sentence2012Unlike testamentary capacity with respect to wills, where the proponent of a will bears the burden of proving testamentary capacity, with a trust document, the burden of proving incapacity is on the one who asserts it (Matter of Goldberg, 153 Misc 2d 560 [1992], citing Matter of Obermeier, 150 AD2d 863 [1989]). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Posporelis v. Posporelis
green
1 sentence2009In view of the .unrefuted evidence that the father disparaged the mother and failed to attend to the son’s known medical needs, and the son’s poor academic performance and fear of the father’s seizure disorder, 3 we find ample evidence of a change in circumstances necessitating reconsideration of the son’s best interests (see Posporelis v Posporelis, 41 AD3d at 988 ; Matter of Filippelli v Chant, 40 AD3d 1221, 1222 [2007]; Matter of Gutiy v Gutiy, 40 AD3d 1155, 1156 [2007]; Matter of Shehata v Shehata, 31 AD3d 773, 774 [2006]). 4 Turning to the next step of the analysis, the primary concern in | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Bodrato v. Biggs
green
1 sentence2009In view of the .unrefuted evidence that the father disparaged the mother and failed to attend to the son’s known medical needs, and the son’s poor academic performance and fear of the father’s seizure disorder, 3 we find ample evidence of a change in circumstances necessitating reconsideration of the son’s best interests (see Posporelis v Posporelis, 41 AD3d at 988 ; Matter of Filippelli v Chant, 40 AD3d 1221, 1222 [2007]; Matter of Gutiy v Gutiy, 40 AD3d 1155, 1156 [2007]; Matter of Shehata v Shehata, 31 AD3d 773, 774 [2006]). 4 Turning to the next step of the analysis, the primary concern in | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Primex International Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
1 sentence1997Corp. v Wal-Mart Stores, 89 NY2d 594, 598 ; Sisters of St. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
City of New York v. State
green
1 sentence1995The next step in the analysis is to determine whether "there is any substantial State interest in the matter” (City of New York v State of New York, supra, 76 NY2d, at 486 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Ingle
green
1 sentence1987The defendant’s allegation that the taxicab was stopped despite the fact that no crime was being committed overlooked the totally legitimate possibility that the vehicle could have been stopped for a traffic violation based upon a very minimal factual basis supporting reasonable suspicion (People v Ingle, 36 NY2d 413, 414-415 ). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.