The People of the State of New York v. C.B., Defendant. (2026)

The People, in a motion dated May 19, 2026, move for an order pursuant to CPL 722.23(1)(b) for an order preventing the removal of this matter to Family Court on the ground that extraordinary circumstances exist. Defense counsel opposes in a affirmation dated June 5, 2026.

The defendant here is a seventeen year old female minor from Albany. Prior to her arrest, she was attending Albany High School and living with her mother. After her arrest on April 30, 2026, she was placed by the Albany County Family Court in the House of the Good Shepherd in Utica, New York, a nonsecure placement.

The defendant was charged in Columbia County with grand larceny in the fourth degree, a class E felony in violation of Penal Law § 155.30(1) for allegedly shoplifting merchandise from Wal-Mart in the amount of one thousand twenty-nine dollars ($1029.00). The merchandise consisted of two Frigidaire brand counter top ice makers, a Shark brand vaccuum cleaner, and a KitchenAid brand mixer.

Criminal Procedure Law § 722.23(1) provides the procedure for removing a youth part non-violent felony to Family Court. The prosecution must file a motion on notice to the defendant to prevent removal to Family Court. CPL § 722.23(1)(b). The Court must deny the motion to prevent removal to Family Court, unless it finds "extraordinary circumstances." CPL§ 722.23(1)(d).

The Third Department looked to the transcript of the New York State Assembly on April 8, 2017 to define extraordinary circumstances. People v. Aaron VV., 246 AD3d 131, 135 (3d Dep't 2025). The Assembly transcript cites factors to determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist:

"[A]ggravating factors that may involve extraordinary circumstances might include proof of a series of crimes committed by the defendant over the course of many days. Did the defendant act in an especially cruel and heinous manner? Was the defendant a ringleader who threatened and coerced reluctant youths to participate in the crimes? Those are all the things that have to be considered in determining whether aggravating factors exist. But even if these aggravating factors are proven, mitigating circumstances could result in a denial of an extraordinary circumstances finding ...." The assembly member continued, "Mitigating circumstances ... would include a wide range of individual factors, such as economic difficulties, substandard housing, poverty, learning difficulties, of course, and educational challenges, lack of insight and susceptibility to peer pressure due to immaturity, absence of positive role models, behavioral role models, abuse of alcohol or controlled substances by the defendant, by family or by peers.... These are things that exceptional circumstances will be required by the court to determine in all of these cases as they go through the system" People v. J.P., at 648—49 (Bx Co. Sup. Ct. 2019).

"[T]he Legislature intended for adolescent offenders to be prosecuted in criminal court only in the most exceptional cases. People v. Aaron VV., 246 AD3d at 136. The People urge that extraordinary circumstances exist in this matter, and that the circumstances in this case are highly unusual and heinous. The defendant here is alleged to have shoplifted appliances from Wal-Mart aided, apparently, by an uncharged adult accomplice who apparently drove the minor female to Wal-Mart.

No one was harmed in connection with this incident. The property was recovered by Wal-Mart. The defendant here is not alleged to have coerced any youths to participate in shoplifting from Wal-Mart - she was not a ringleader in a shoplifting spree. The Court notes that there were no apparent injuries sustained in the instant charges, and that the terms "cruel" and "heinous" are inapplicable to this shoplifting charge. Nor can it be said that stealing from Wal-Mart is an extraordinary occurrence, no matter who the culprit is alleged to be.

The People cite to other charges in Albany County as aggravating factors. However, the Court of Appeals instructs us that "[a]s a rule, a juvenile delinquency adjudication cannot be used against the juvenile in any other court for any other purpose." Green v. Mongomery, 95 NY2d 693, 697 (2001) [See Family Court Act § 381.2; also see People v. MM., 64 Misc 3d 259, 267 (Nassau Co. Court 2019); People v. J.J., 74 Misc 3d 1223(A) (Ulster Co. Court 2022).]

The People also offer a prior shoplifting charge at the Greenport Tractor Supply on November 6, 2025 against the defendant as an aggravating circumstance. The Tractor Supply theft does not appear to have been arraigned in Columbia County Court, as the Court has no record of this charge except for the People's Exhibit to their motion. This arguably tends to show "a series of crimes committed be the defendant over the course of many days." People v. J.P., 63 Misc 3d 635, 648 (Bronx Co. Sup. Ct. 2019). Actually, it shows two incidences of shoplifting in November of 2025 and April of 2026. The People's exhibit concerning the November 6, 2025 arrest shows that the minor female was discovered and arrested almost immediately after the alleged theft. The police reports also indicate that after a consent search, the stolen property from Tractor Supply was recovered. No injuries were reported in that incident, either. An adult accomplice was charged in November incident, as well as another minor.

The People also cite the minor female's active arrest warrant as an aggravating factor. She was arrested on the warrant as a result of the instant offense in Greenport on April 30, 2026. The People's exhibit indicates the warrant lists the defendant as a juvenile runaway.

In mitigation the court recognizes the youth and immaturity of the defendant, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident charged. It appears that she was the sole underaged participant in this alleged crime. It further appears that she may have been acting at the direction and under the control of whomever had transported her to Columbia County for the purpose of shoplifting. The defendant here was a passenger in another person's vehicle. The adult who transported the defendant to the Greenport Walmart apparently parked a far distance from the entrance, then allowed the defendant to enter the Greenport Wal-Mart on her own, apparently with no money to buy anything, and then allowed the defendant to load merchandise into the vehicle. The Court is left to wonder about the relationship between the 39 year old adult woman who drove to the Wal-Mart and the alleged adolescent offender.

This Court has no information concerning the defendant's family life or role models. The Court has no information regarding the defendant's mental health status or whether she suffers from a substance use disorder. The Court is aware that since her arrest, the defendant has been placed at the House of the Good Shepherd Non-Secure Detention Center in Utica, New York. The placement appears to stem from the Albany charges. It is the Court's expectation and hope that any services necessary to get C.B. back on the right path will be offered to her in this placement.

In weighing these considerations, the Court will Deny the People's application to prevent this matter from being moved to Family Court pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 722.23, as this matter lacks extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, this matter will be transferred to Family Court.

Dated: June 17, 2026

Hudson, New York

ENTER:

Michael C. Howard, J.C.C.

Michael C. Howard, J.