43 New York opinions name it 8 courts 1985–2025 18 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Galpingreen2 sentences2024To meet the particularity requirement, a search warrant must (1) "identify the specific offense for which the police have established probable cause," (2) "describe the place to be searched," and (3) "specify the items to be seized by their relation to designated crimes" ( United States v Galpin , 720 F3d 436, 445-446 [2d Cir 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Saeli [appeal No. 1], 219 AD3d 1122 , 1124 [4th Dept 2023]; see generally People v Madigan , 169 AD3d 1467 , 1468 [4th Dept 2019], [*2]lv denied 33 NY3d 1033 [2019]). 2024"To meet the particularity requirement, a search warrant must (1) 'identify the specific offense for which the police have established probable cause,' (2) 'describe the place [or person] to be searched,' and (3) 'specify the items to be seized by their relation to designated crimes' " ( People v Wiggins , 229 AD3d 1095 , 1096 [4th Dept 2024], quoting United States v Galpin , 720 F3d 436, 445-446 [2d Cir 2013]; see People v Saeli [appeal No. 1], 219 AD3d 1122 , 1124 [4th Dept 2023]). | 8 | 9 |
People v. Browngreen2 sentences2025Thus, "[t]o meet the particularity requirement, the warrant's directive must be specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer" ( People v Brown , 96 NY2d 80, 84 [2001] [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]). 2021To meet the particularity requirement, the warrant's directive must be 'specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer' " ( People v Brown , 96 NY2d 80, 84 [2001]). | 4 | 6 |
People v. Cahillgreen2 sentences2023Consistent with the constitutional provisions, CPL 690.45(4) requires that when a search warrant authorizes the seizure of property, the warrant must include "[a] description of the property which is the subject of the search." "To meet the particularity requirement, the warrant.must be specific enough to leave no discretion to the police" (see People v Cahill, 2 NY3d 14, 41 [2003]). 2023Consistent with the constitutional provisions, CPL 690.45(4) requires that when a search warrant authorizes the seizure of property, the warrant must include "[a] description of the property which is the subject of the search." "To meet the particularity requirement, the warrant must be specific enough to leave no discretion to the police" (see People v Cahill, 2 NY3d 14, 41 [2003]). | 4 | 4 |
People v. Garciagreen2 sentences2023This Court recognizes the "strong judicial preferences for search warrants" (People v Leggio, 84 AD3d 1116, 1117 [2d Dept 2011]). 2023This Court recognizes the "strong judicial preferences for search warrants" (People v Leggio, 84 AD3d 1116, 1117 [2d Dept 2011]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Nievesgreen2 sentences2025In gauging whether a search warrant satisfies the particularity requirement of the Federal Constitution, the court must view the description of the premises to be searched with common sense: the descriptions in the warrant, the affidavit supporting the warrant application, and the testimony given in the in camera hearing must be sufficiently definite to enable the police to identify the place that the judge determined should be searched ( Nieves , 36 NY2d at 401-402 ). [FN9] "In reviewing the validity of a search warrant to determine . . . whether it contained a sufficiently particular descrip 2025In gauging whether a search warrant satisfies the particularity requirement of the Federal Constitution, the court must view the description of the premises to be searched with common sense: the descriptions in the warrant, the affidavit supporting the warrant application, and the testimony given in the in camera hearing must be sufficiently definite to enable the police to identify the place that the judge determined should be searched ( Nieves , 36 NY2d at 401-402 ). [FN9] "In reviewing the validity of a search warrant to determine . . . whether it contained a sufficiently particular descrip | 2 | 5 |
People v. Darlinggreen2 sentences2019"To meet the particularity requirement, the warrant's directive must be specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer'" ( id. at 84 , quoting People v Darling , 95 NY2d 530, 537 ; see Andresen v Maryland , 427 US 463, 480 ). 2016As the Second Circuit argued in United States v Galpin, there must be a “heightened sensitivity to the particularity requirement in the context of digital searches” because the government, by necessity, must make at least a cursory examination of numerous non-responsive communications to discover the particular content authorized by a warrant. ( 720 F3d at 447 .) The warrants’ directives in this case certainly did not “leave no discretion to the executing officer.” (People v Brown at 84 .) A warrant must be “specific enough” to ensure that “the Judge and not the officer fixes the scope of the | 2 | 3 |
People v. Hanlongreen2 sentences2024Assuming, arguendo, that defendant's challenges to the warrants are "preserved for our review because [their] validity [on those grounds] was expressly decided by the court" ( People v Colon , 192 AD3d 1567, 1568 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 955 [2021]; see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Prado , 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004], rearg denied 4 NY3d 795 [2005]), we conclude that the warrants, which are "cloak[ed] . . . with a presumption of validity" ( People v DeProspero , 91 AD3d 39, 44 [4th Dept 2011], affd 20 NY3d 527 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]) and are not to "be read in a hypertechni 1987(See, discussion in People v Hanlon, 36 NY2d 549, 559 [1975] [per Wachtler, J.].) Defendants next contend that the warrant itself is defective because it fails to satisfy the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. | 2 | 2 |
Ridinger v. West Chelsea Development Partners LLCgreen2 sentences2019Partners LLC , 150 AD3d 559, 560 [1st Dept 2017]). 2017Partners LLC, 150 AD3d 559, 560 [1st Dept 2017]; see Gateway I Group, Inc. v Park Ave. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Raineygreen2 sentences2025In gauging whether a search warrant satisfies the particularity requirement of the Federal Constitution, the court must view the description of the premises to be searched with common sense: the descriptions in the warrant, the affidavit supporting the warrant application, and the testimony given in the in camera hearing must be sufficiently definite to enable the police to identify the place that the judge determined should be searched ( Nieves , 36 NY2d at 401-402 ). [FN9] "In reviewing the validity of a search warrant to determine . . . whether it contained a sufficiently particular descrip 2023In People v Rainey ( 14 NY2d 35 ), the Court of Appeals held that a search warrant was overbroad, in violation of the particularity requirement of the Federal and State Constitutions, since the warrant authorized the search of an entire residential building, even though the police officer who procured the warrant was aware that the building contained two separate apartments. | 1 | 3 |
Andresen v. Marylandgreen2 sentences2019"To meet the particularity requirement, the warrant's directive must be specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer'" ( id. at 84 , quoting People v Darling , 95 NY2d 530, 537 ; see Andresen v Maryland , 427 US 463, 480 ). 2001To meet the particularity requirement, the warrant’s directive must be “specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer” (People v Darling, 95 NY2d 530, 537 [citing Andresen v Maryland, 427 US 463, 480 ; Marron v United States, 275 US 192, 196 ]). | 1 | 3 |
Efdey Electric, Inc. v. Harold S. Elovichgreen1 sentence2025Here, issues of fact exist necessitating a hearing ( see CPL 710.60[4] [requiring the court to conduct a hearing on a suppression motion if not summarily granted or denied]; see also People v Otero , 151 AD2d 236 [1st Dept 1989]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dealmeidagreen1 sentence2025Thus, we conclude that defendant "established that a motion to suppress would likely be successful, and that defense counsel had no strategic or other legitimate explanation for not moving to suppress the evidence" ( People v Dealmeida , 124 AD3d 1405, 1407 [4th Dept 2015]; see Riley , 573 US at 386; Wiggins , 229 AD3d at 1096-1097). | 1 | 1 |
People v. DeProsperogreen1 sentence2024Assuming, arguendo, that defendant's challenges to the warrants are "preserved for our review because [their] validity [on those grounds] was expressly decided by the court" ( People v Colon , 192 AD3d 1567, 1568 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 955 [2021]; see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Prado , 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004], rearg denied 4 NY3d 795 [2005]), we conclude that the warrants, which are "cloak[ed] . . . with a presumption of validity" ( People v DeProspero , 91 AD3d 39, 44 [4th Dept 2011], affd 20 NY3d 527 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]) and are not to "be read in a hypertechni | 1 | 1 |
People v. Colongreen1 sentence2024Assuming, arguendo, that defendant's challenges to the warrants are "preserved for our review because [their] validity [on those grounds] was expressly decided by the court" ( People v Colon , 192 AD3d 1567, 1568 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 955 [2021]; see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Prado , 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004], rearg denied 4 NY3d 795 [2005]), we conclude that the warrants, which are "cloak[ed] . . . with a presumption of validity" ( People v DeProspero , 91 AD3d 39, 44 [4th Dept 2011], affd 20 NY3d 527 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]) and are not to "be read in a hypertechni | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pradogreen1 sentence2024Assuming, arguendo, that defendant's challenges to the warrants are "preserved for our review because [their] validity [on those grounds] was expressly decided by the court" ( People v Colon , 192 AD3d 1567, 1568 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 955 [2021]; see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Prado , 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004], rearg denied 4 NY3d 795 [2005]), we conclude that the warrants, which are "cloak[ed] . . . with a presumption of validity" ( People v DeProspero , 91 AD3d 39, 44 [4th Dept 2011], affd 20 NY3d 527 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]) and are not to "be read in a hypertechni | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Cartergreen | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Joel Josephgreen1 sentence2021Defendant's related contention that the search warrant failed to meet the particularity requirement is unpreserved ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; see generally People v Williams , 127 AD3d 612 , 612 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1009 [2016]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice. | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Yuklgreen | 1 | 1 |
Maryland v. Garrisongreen1 sentence2021In Rainey, the warrant was “void in its inception” because of the officer’s actual knowledge of facts that rendered the warrant’s description of the premises overbroad (id. at 39), a principle that would extend to invalidate a warrant where the applicant should have known, from reasonable investigation, that the warrant’s description was overbroad (see Maryland v Garrison, 480 US 79, 85 [1987] [the validity of a warrant to search the third floor of a building turned on whether “the officers had known, or even if they should have known, that there were two separate dwelling units on the third f | 1 | 1 |
| Lee v. Chun Ka Lukgreen | 1 | 1 |
| American Transit Insurance v. Solorzanogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gateway I Group, Inc. v. Park Avenue Physicians, P.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| BCRE 230 Riverside v. Fuchsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ramos v. Madison Square Garden Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Fowles v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sinacore v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chime v. Sicuranzagreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Ventrescagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Conan Properties, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc.green | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pappalardo v. Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2024Without annexing the "libelous" complaint to the pleading, the quoted allegations are insufficient to satisfy the particularity requirement under CPLR 3016(a) ( see Polish American Immigration Relief Committee, Inc. v. Relax, 172 AD2d 374 [1st Dept 1991] [attaching entire article containing alleged libelous material to the complaint satisfied specificity pleading requirement]; Pappalardo v. Westchester Rockland Newspapers, 101 AD2d 830 [2d Dept 1984] [specificity requirement is satisfied by inclusion of the purported libelous words directly in the complaint or by incorporation]). 2024Without annexing the "libelous" complaint to the pleading, the quoted allegations are insufficient to satisfy the particularity requirement under CPLR 3016(a) ( see Polish American Immigration Relief Committee, Inc. v. Relax, 172 AD2d 374 [1st Dept 1991] [attaching entire article containing alleged libelous material to the complaint satisfied specificity pleading requirement]; Pappalardo v. Westchester Rockland Newspapers, 101 AD2d 830 [2d Dept 1984] [specificity requirement is satisfied by inclusion of the purported libelous words directly in the complaint or by incorporation]). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Polish American Immigration Relief Committee, Inc. v. Relax
green
2 sentences2024Without annexing the "libelous" complaint to the pleading, the quoted allegations are insufficient to satisfy the particularity requirement under CPLR 3016(a) ( see Polish American Immigration Relief Committee, Inc. v. Relax, 172 AD2d 374 [1st Dept 1991] [attaching entire article containing alleged libelous material to the complaint satisfied specificity pleading requirement]; Pappalardo v. Westchester Rockland Newspapers, 101 AD2d 830 [2d Dept 1984] [specificity requirement is satisfied by inclusion of the purported libelous words directly in the complaint or by incorporation]). 2024Without annexing the "libelous" complaint to the pleading, the quoted allegations are insufficient to satisfy the particularity requirement under CPLR 3016(a) ( see Polish American Immigration Relief Committee, Inc. v. Relax, 172 AD2d 374 [1st Dept 1991] [attaching entire article containing alleged libelous material to the complaint satisfied specificity pleading requirement]; Pappalardo v. Westchester Rockland Newspapers, 101 AD2d 830 [2d Dept 1984] [specificity requirement is satisfied by inclusion of the purported libelous words directly in the complaint or by incorporation]). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Groh v. Ramirez
green
2 sentences2019The particularity requirement " assures the individual whose property is searched or seized of the lawful authority of the executing officer, his need to search, and the limits of his power to search'" ( Groh , 540 US at 561 ). 2019"Indeed, indiscriminate searches pursuant to general warrants were the immediate evils that motivated the framing and adoption of the Fourth Amendment'" ( id. at 84 , quoting Payton v New York , 445 US 573, 583 ). " [A] search conducted pursuant to a warrant that fails to conform to the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is unconstitutional'" ( Groh v Ramirez , 540 US 551, 559 , quoting Massachusetts v Sheppard , 468 US 981 , 988 n 5). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Marine Midland Bank v. Zurich Insurance
green
2 sentences2014Co., 263 AD2d 382 [1st Dept 1999]). 2014Co., 263 AD2d 382 [1st Dept 1999]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Marron v. United States
green
2 sentences2001To meet the particularity requirement, the warrant’s directive must be “specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer” (People v Darling, 95 NY2d 530, 537 [citing Andresen v Maryland, 427 US 463, 480 ; Marron v United States, 275 US 192, 196 ]). 2000To minimize invasiveness, the Fourth Amendment requires that the Judge’s directive be specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer (Andresen v Maryland, 427 US 463, 480 ; Marron v United States, 275 US 192, 196 ; People v Nieves, 36 NY2d 396, 401 ). | 2 | 2000–2001 |
People v. Conley
green
2 sentences2025In our decision on the direct appeal, we concluded that defendant's "contention that the search warrant failed to meet the particularity requirement [was] unpreserved" and "decline[d] to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice" ( Conley , 192 AD3d at 1618 ), leaving defendant's ineffective assistance contention based on evidence outside the record for a subsequent CPL 440.10 motion ( Conley , 192 AD3d at 1621 ). 2025In our decision on the direct appeal, we concluded that defendant's "contention that the search warrant failed to meet the particularity requirement [was] unpreserved" and "decline[d] to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice" ( Conley , 192 AD3d at 1618 ), leaving defendant's ineffective assistance contention based on evidence outside the record for a subsequent CPL 440.10 motion ( Conley , 192 AD3d at 1621 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Otero
green
2 sentences2025In gauging whether a search warrant satisfies the particularity requirement of the Federal Constitution, the court must view the description of the premises to be searched with common sense: the descriptions in the warrant, the affidavit supporting the warrant application, and the testimony given in the in camera hearing must be sufficiently definite to enable the police to identify the place that the judge determined should be searched ( Nieves , 36 NY2d at 401-402 ). [FN9] "In reviewing the validity of a search warrant to determine . . . whether it contained a sufficiently particular descrip 2025In gauging whether a search warrant satisfies the particularity requirement of the Federal Constitution, the court must view the description of the premises to be searched with common sense: the descriptions in the warrant, the affidavit supporting the warrant application, and the testimony given in the in camera hearing must be sufficiently definite to enable the police to identify the place that the judge determined should be searched ( Nieves , 36 NY2d at 401-402 ). [FN9] "In reviewing the validity of a search warrant to determine . . . whether it contained a sufficiently particular descrip | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Sheehy v. Clifford Chance Rogers & Wells LLP
green
1 sentence2024Assuming, arguendo, that defendant's challenges to the warrants are "preserved for our review because [their] validity [on those grounds] was expressly decided by the court" ( People v Colon , 192 AD3d 1567, 1568 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 955 [2021]; see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Prado , 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004], rearg denied 4 NY3d 795 [2005]), we conclude that the warrants, which are "cloak[ed] . . . with a presumption of validity" ( People v DeProspero , 91 AD3d 39, 44 [4th Dept 2011], affd 20 NY3d 527 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]) and are not to "be read in a hypertechni | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Flagstar Capital Mkts.
green
2 sentences2024Corp. , 143 AD3d 15 [1st Dept 2016], affd 32 NY3d 139 [2018]), and such claim is not subject to a heightened particularity standard in pleadings ( see Miami Firefighters' Relief & Pension Fund v Icahn , 199 AD3d 524, 526 [1st Dept 2021]). 2024Corp. , 143 AD3d 15 [1st Dept 2016], affd 32 NY3d 139 [2018]), and such claim is not subject to a heightened particularity standard in pleadings ( see Miami Firefighters' Relief & Pension Fund v Icahn , 199 AD3d 524 , 526 [1st Dept 2021]). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Flagstar Capital Markets Corp.
green
2 sentences2024Corp. , 143 AD3d 15 [1st Dept 2016], affd 32 NY3d 139 [2018]), and such claim is not subject to a heightened particularity standard in pleadings ( see Miami Firefighters' Relief & Pension Fund v Icahn , 199 AD3d 524, 526 [1st Dept 2021]). 2024Corp. , 143 AD3d 15 [1st Dept 2016], affd 32 NY3d 139 [2018]), and such claim is not subject to a heightened particularity standard in pleadings ( see Miami Firefighters' Relief & Pension Fund v Icahn , 199 AD3d 524 , 526 [1st Dept 2021]). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. DeProspero
green
1 sentence2024Assuming, arguendo, that defendant's challenges to the warrants are "preserved for our review because [their] validity [on those grounds] was expressly decided by the court" ( People v Colon , 192 AD3d 1567, 1568 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 955 [2021]; see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Prado , 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004], rearg denied 4 NY3d 795 [2005]), we conclude that the warrants, which are "cloak[ed] . . . with a presumption of validity" ( People v DeProspero , 91 AD3d 39, 44 [4th Dept 2011], affd 20 NY3d 527 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]) and are not to "be read in a hypertechni | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Vanness
green
2 sentences2022Here, the warrant authorized police to search defendant's cell phone, which was already at the police station, and seize "records and documents . . . in the form of internet history, SMS, MMS, IM, Chats, Contacts, GPS coordinates, Cell locations [and] Call logs" including "[a]ny access numbers, passcodes, swipe code patterns, passwords, personal identification numbers (PINS), logs, notes, memoranda and correspondence relating to computer, electronic and voice mail systems, Internet addresses and/or related contacts," "[a]ny and all photographs and/or videos" and "GPS Location History." The war 2022Here, the warrant authorized police to search defendant's cell phone, which was already at the police station, and seize "records and documents . . . in the form of internet history, SMS, MMS, IM, Chats, Contacts, GPS coordinates, Cell locations [and] Call logs" including "[a]ny access numbers, passcodes, swipe code patterns, passwords, personal identification numbers (PINS), logs, notes, memoranda and correspondence relating to computer, electronic and voice mail systems, Internet addresses and/or related contacts," "[a]ny and all photographs and/or videos" and "GPS Location History." The war | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Patterson v. District Court of Oklahoma
green
1 sentence2021We reject the contentions of defendant, presented in her pro se supplemental brief, that the court erred in failing to suppress certain statements she made to police investigators on December 21, 2015, and February 5, 2016. "[B]oth the elements of police 'custody' and police 'interrogation' must be present before law enforcement officials constitutionally are obligated to provide the procedural safeguards imposed upon them by Miranda " ( People v Huffman , 41 NY2d 29 , 33 [1976]). "[T]he fact that a defendant is being interviewed in the police station does not necessarily mean that he [or she] | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Payton v. New York green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| United States v. Rosa green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Massachusetts v. Sheppard green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Matter of New York State Off. of Mental Health v. Joseph C. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Horton v. California green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Kevin Spence & Sons, Inc. v. Boar's Head Provisions Co. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Murganti v. Weber green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Coolidge v. New Hampshire green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Lanzi v. Brooks green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Foster v. Churchill green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Pfunter green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| O'Neil v. Peekskill Faculty Ass'n green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Mansour v. Abrams green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Loughry v. Lincoln First Bank, N. A. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Lemazzo green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. Tranka green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Watkins v. United States green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| SNR Holdings, Inc. v. Ataka America, Inc. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Curreri v. Verni green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Barr v. Wackman green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| McLearn v. Cowen & Co. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.