You are here: / / THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE HEARSAY ALLEGATIONS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION...
,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE HEARSAY ALLEGATIONS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH TWO DIFFERENT RESIDENCES; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE APPLICATION DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH ONE OF THE TWO RESIDENCES, I.E., THERE WERE NO DETAILS DESCRIBING THE NARCOTICS THE INFORMANT OBSERVED IN THE RESIDENCE AND NO INDICATION WHEN THE OBSERVATON WAS MADE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the hearsay allegations in the search warrant application were sufficient to provide probable cause to search two different residences. The two dissenting justices agued that the search warrant application focused on one residence and barely mentioned the other:

From the dissent:

Here, the warrant application in question concerned two addresses, i.e., 205 Curtis Street and 215 Curtis Street, but contained a mere two statements based on the confidential informant’s claimed knowledge regarding 205 Curtis Street. Specifically, it stated that “[t]he [confidential informant] has been inside 205 Curtis St[reet] on multiple occasions and is aware that narcotics are kept inside the location,” and that “[t]he [confidential informant] . . . has been to 205 and 215 Curtis Street multiple times for narcotics transactions.” The remaining contents of the six-page, single-spaced warrant application focused on 215 Curtis Street.

… [W]e agree with defendant that the hearsay information regarding 205 Curtis Street does not provide the requisite basis of knowledge justifying the issuance of the search warrant for that address … . First, we note that the application neither details any transaction that occurred at 205 Curtis Street, nor specifies the type of narcotic exchanged during such transaction. Second, no time frame is provided for the hearsay statements concerning 205 Curtis Street, and it is therefore entirely possible that the unspecified drug transaction occurred years or decades ago. In fact, the warrant application entirely fails to set forth what was actually observed by the informant at 205 Curtis Street or when it was observed … . On this record, we conclude that there is no basis provided to support the informant’s claimed awareness of narcotics at 205 Curtis Street. People v Berry, 2025 NY Slip Op 01523, Fourth Dept 3-14-25

Practice Point: According to the dissent, the bare allegation the informant observed narcotics in a residence, without any detail and without any time frame, did not provide probable cause for the search of that residence.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL AND DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
17-YEAR-OLD’S ARE STATUTORILY EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS OF VICTIMS UNDER PENAL LAW 263.11, TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY; RISK-LEVEL REDUCED FROM TWO TO ONE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE ALLEGED ACTS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT OCCURRED AT LEAST 24 HOURS APART; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PRESENT PROOF SUPPORTING A 20 POINT ASSESSMENT FOR A “CONTINUOUS COURSE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT:” LEVEL THREE REDUCED TO LEVEL TWO (FOURTH DEPT).
THE AMENDED STATUTE CHANGING THE CRITERIA FOR NEGLECT BASED ON MARIHUANA USE WENT INTO EFFECT TWO DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING AND WAS NOT APPLIED TO THE FACTS; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS SUED A FOSTER-CHILD PLACEMENT SERVICE FOR FRAUD AND NEGLIGENCE AFTER THE FOSTER CHILD SEXUALLY ASSAULTED PLAINTIFFS’ BIOLOGICAL CHILD; THE FRAUD ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE PLACEMENT SERVICE’S MERE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FOSTER CHILD’S SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN 2008 DID NOT START THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS SUPPORTED BY A DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFFS’ BIOLOGICAL CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIR OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT CASE; THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Legal Malpractice Action Accrues When Committed, Not When Client Learns of It

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

THE COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY... ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT THE PAROLE ABSCONDER FOR WHOM THE POLICE HAD...