or here in the next case on the calendar sunni versus the city of new york up on the basic history an issue in this case as rather the two family court orders authorized police officers to make a forcible contributed to what she did he she he's a part we say that they don't the basic history of this case is why should he what he did he lives in her apartment with her two minor children at the time and her two gel children so i know if she can do a degree found to remove the child the door that didn't authorize a forcible entry into the apartment and it didn't authorize a police officer to execute order absolution is when they came with that order if they could not get into the apartment then they should have gotten a warrant to enter that apartment there's no phone i think that there is any exception to the warrant requirement that on the motion for partial summary judgment our position is that the court found that the police at the right to enter the part and then add water and they had probable cause to arrest authorize a forcible entry to the apartment now we recognize and the brief that debrief might not have been the most artfully drafted brief and there is room to grow there this is not a brief on the for th amendment purposes right it is the equivalent to a search warrant for sutherland was specially different from that case back in our position is that the probable cause analysis for the sam the court order and a search warrant is the same but the or what have you had a particular location where this was under new york law federal court law a search warrant is dead and stare probable cause to believe that the instrumentality of a crime generally speaking will be was still behind the threshold of the door position if that opening the door doesn't authorize entry if you're behind the door your honor what had there was no forcible entry and then the police testified and the jury was determined what happened after that right well my position is opposition is that based on the facts and the testimony he opened the door there was a discussion he went to close the door and then the officer stuck his foot in the door and forced his way and part of our position is that as soon as he stuck his foot in the don't walk violated the th amendment because he didn't have a right to cross the threshold of the apartment  based on his presentation to the court are really truthful that that order didn't permit forcible entry on either occasion and that that order could not be executed by a police officer was also immediately confronted by what he or she he and so the facts as defendants presented them in that case and even as plaintiffs really testified did not constitute a forcible entry at all states verbatim provided however that law enforcement might not enter the premises where the children or children are believed to be present without a search warrant or other constitutional basis for entry but what also  references to criminal procedure law so opposition is that even though the court the family court authorize forcible entry and a civil matter before the police could enter see the statute in the family court wanted them to go get a starch warrant to end it apart apartment if the court does not have additional questions regarding that issue moved to the entry  on june th one minute last count june th when the officer put his foot in the door that was the search the predicate for everything here it's the entry into the apartment damon if that wasn't planted in the complaint ok legally if you can't come in our position is you don't have anything else thank you ron thank you thank you