You are here: / / Court Should Have Held a Hearing to Determine Whether Exigent Circumstances...
, ,

Court Should Have Held a Hearing to Determine Whether Exigent Circumstances Justified Warrantless Forced Entry to an Apartment

The First Department determined that the motion court should have held a hearing to determine whether the forced entry of an apartment was justified by exigent circumstances.  At the time of defendant’s motion for a hearing, the facts surrounding the incident were not available to the defendant and the People’s response to the motion was “conclusory:”

In denying defendant’s application for a hearing, the Court summarily found that exigent circumstances justified the pursuit and warrantless entry, based upon the individuals in the hallway reportedly having smoked marijuana, then racing into the apartment and locking the door, and the need to prevent destruction of evidence. Defendant argues in his brief that at most some individuals were seen smoking marijuana, a class B misdemeanor that would not present exigent circumstances sufficient for a forced entry.

Under the circumstances presented here, where the information proffered by the People to support the forcible entry was conclusory and defendant did not have access to available information, we find that it was incumbent upon the motion court to conduct a hearing to determine whether there were sufficient exigent circumstances to justify the forced warrantless entry… . People v Chamlee, 2014 NY Slip Op 05921, 1st Dept 8-21-14

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WHEN HE FELL FROM A LADDER, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT STATED VALID COUNTERCLAIMS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY THE ACCIDENT, AS OPPOSED TO A DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT.
AMENDMENT TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WHICH IMPOSED LIABILITY UPON INSURERS FOR REOPENED CASES PREVIOUSLY COVERED BY THE SPECIAL FUND IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
POLICE OFFICER’S EXPECTATION THAT DEFENDANT WOULD BE ARRESTED DID NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY, MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
Liquor Authority Properly Complied with the Requirements for Issuing a Liquor License When Three or More Licensed Premises Are Located Within 500 Feet
THE INSURER’S NEARLY TWO-MONTH DELAY BEFORE DISCLAIMING COVERAGE RENDERED THE DISCLAIMER UNTIMELY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FIRST DEPT).
RELEVANT REGULATION, RATHER THAN THE POLICY LANGUAGE, CONTROLLED THE CALCULATION OF INTEREST ON INSURANCE POLICY PROCEEDS (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Allegation Corporation Was Deliberately Rendered Judgment Proof by Parent Corporation... Defense Counsel Should Have Been Allowed to Cross-Examine Cooperating Accomplice/Witness...