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
County Has a Duty to Protect Jail Inmates from the Foreseeable Assaults by Other Inmates
Stay of Arbitration Properly Denied, Collective Bargaining Agreement Allowed Issue to Be Determined in Arbitration
THE PEOPLE WERE NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE WHETHER THE CHEMICAL BREATH TEST SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED; NEW SUPPRESSION HEARING ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 and 200 Actions Against the Town Should Have Been Dismissed—Although the Town Hired Plaintiff to Do Work on the Town’s Right of Way, the Accident Occurred on Adjacent Private Property—Labor Law 200 Action Against the Property Owners Should Not Have Been Dismissed
CORPORATE OFFICER MAY BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 853 (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY EXCLUSION IN THE NAIL SALON’S INSURANCE POLICY IS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND EXCLUDES INJURY RESULTING FROM A “COSMETIC SERVICE;” PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE CONTRACTED AN INFECTION DURING A PEDICURE; COVERAGE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE COURT LACKED AUTHORITY TO DEEM A NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY FILED MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND 90 DAYS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION (SLIP AND FALL) ACCRUED, EVEN THOUGH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WAS SERVED WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD; A NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED MORE THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT IS A NULLITY (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE AMOUNT OWED BY THE DEFENDANT OR THE REASONABLENESS OF THE SALE OF THE COLLATERAL (FOURTH 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

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