§ 4506.Eavesdropping evidence; admissibility; motion to suppress in certain cases
Article 45. Evidence · Last amended 1969 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 4506 blocks the use of illegally intercepted communications, or evidence derived from them, in New York civil and administrative proceedings, except against the person who did the eavesdropping, and lets an aggrieved party move to suppress such evidence.
1. The contents of any overheard or recorded communication, conversation or discussion, or evidence derived therefrom, which has been obtained by conduct constituting the crime of eavesdropping, as defined by section 250.05 of the penal law, may not be received in evidence in any trial, hearing or proceeding before any court or grand jury, or before any legislative committee, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof; provided, however, that such communication, conversation, discussion or evidence, shall be admissible in any civil or criminal trial, hearing or proceeding against a person who has, or is alleged to have, committed such crime of eavesdropping.
2. As used in this section, the term “aggrieved person” means:
(a)A person who was a sender or receiver of a telephonic or telegraphic communication which was intentionally overheard or recorded by a person other than the sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of the sender or receiver, by means of any instrument, device or equipment; or
(b)A party to a conversation or discussion which was intentionally overheard or recorded, without the consent of a least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat, by means of any instrument, device or equipment; or
(c)A person against whom the overhearing or recording described in paragraphs (a) and (b) was directed.
3. An aggrieved person who is a party in any civil trial, hearing or proceeding before any court, or before any department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, may move to suppress the contents of any overheard or recorded communication, conversation or discussion or evidence derived therefrom, on the ground that:
(a)The communication, conversation or discussion was unlawfully overheard or recorded; or
(b)The eavesdropping warrant under which it was overheard or recorded is insufficient on its face; or
(c)The eavesdropping was not done in conformity with the eavesdropping warrant.
4. The motion prescribed in subdivision three of this section must be made before the judge or justice who issued the eavesdropping warrant. If no eavesdropping warrant was issued, such motion must be made before a justice of the supreme court of the judicial district in which the trial, hearing or proceeding is pending. The aggrieved person must allege in his motion papers that an overheard or recorded communication, conversation or discussion, or evidence derived therefrom, is subject to suppression under subdivision three of this section, and that such communication, conversation or discussion, or evidence, may be used against him in the civil trial, hearing or proceeding in which he is a party. The motion must be made prior to the commencement of such trial, hearing or proceeding, unless there was no opportunity to make such motion or the aggrieved person was not aware of the grounds of the motion. If the motion is granted, the contents of the overheard or recorded communication, conversation or discussion or evidence derived therefrom, may not be received in evidence in any trial, hearing or proceeding.
Plain-English Summary
CPLR 4506 keeps illegally obtained wiretap or eavesdropping evidence out of civil litigation. If a communication was intercepted through conduct that amounts to the crime of eavesdropping under the Penal Law, neither that communication nor anything derived from it can come into evidence in a trial, hearing, or proceeding before a court, grand jury, legislative committee, or state agency. The one exception: such evidence can be used against the person who committed, or is alleged to have committed, the eavesdropping.
The section defines who counts as an aggrieved person entitled to challenge such evidence: someone whose telephone or telegraph communication was intercepted without consent, a party to an overheard conversation who did not consent to it being recorded by someone not present, or a person against whom either kind of interception was directed.
An aggrieved party involved in a civil proceeding can move to suppress the evidence on the ground that it was unlawfully intercepted, that the eavesdropping warrant was insufficient on its face, or that the eavesdropping departed from the warrant. That motion has to go to the judge who issued the warrant, or, if there was no warrant, to a supreme court justice in the district where the case is pending, and it generally must be made before the trial or hearing begins.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can illegally recorded conversations be used in a New York civil case?
No, not against the person whose communication was intercepted. CPLR 4506 bars evidence obtained through the crime of eavesdropping, and anything derived from it, from most civil trials and hearings.
Is there any exception to CPLR 4506's ban on eavesdropping evidence?
Yes. Such evidence can be used against the person who committed, or is alleged to have committed, the eavesdropping itself.
Who counts as an aggrieved person under CPLR 4506?
A sender or receiver of an intercepted phone or telegraph communication, a party to a conversation recorded without consent by someone not present, or the person the interception was directed against.
How does a party move to suppress illegally obtained evidence in a civil case?
CPLR 4506(3) lets an aggrieved person move to suppress on the ground the interception was unlawful, the warrant was facially insufficient, or the eavesdropping did not conform to the warrant, filed with the judge who issued the warrant or, absent a warrant, a supreme court justice in the district.
When must a motion to suppress eavesdropping evidence be made?
Before the trial, hearing, or proceeding begins, unless the aggrieved person had no earlier opportunity or was unaware of the grounds for the motion.
Advisory Committee Notes
This section derives from former § 345-a. The word “action” as it is used in this section includes the words “action, proceeding or hearing” so that the last three words in the phrase have been omitted. The section allows admission of such evidence in any action brought against the person who wrongfully obtains such evidence.
Amendment History
Add, L 1969, ch 1147, § 8, eff June 25, 1969.
Source & verification. Provision text, History, and Advisory
Committee Notes are reproduced verbatim from the Consolidated Laws of New York.
Last verified July 21, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:eavesdropping evidence New York civil caseillegal wiretap evidence inadmissible New Yorkmotion to suppress eavesdropping CPLRaggrieved person eavesdropping statute