PEOPLE v. MASON

The court properly denied defendants' motions to suppress evidence acquired from eavesdropping. The eavesdropping warrants made the type of particularized showing of necessity required by CPL 700.15 (4). The affidavits were not conclusory, but instead provided detailed reasons why normal investigative procedures would likely be unsuccessful ( compare United States v DiMuro, 540 F2d 503, 510-511 [1st Cir 1976], cert denied 429 US 1038, with United States v Santora, 600 F2d 1317 [9th Cir 1979], and People v Fonville, 247 AD2d 115). The affiant's reliance on experience obtained in a closely related investigation into similar activities by other suspects was proper, because the affidavit was sufficiently specific in showing the connection between the two investigations. Since defendants never attacked the credibility of the affiant, the court properly denied the motions without a hearing [ see People v Rock, 33 AD3d 334, lv denied 8 NY3d 848).