The People of the State of New York v. AO (2026)

The People having moved pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 722.23(1), et seq. for an order preventing removal of this action to the juvenile delinquency part of Erie County Family Court, and upon reading the Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit of Taylor L. Yensan, Esq. (Assistant District Attorney), dated June 9, 2026; responsive papers dated June 11, 2026 having been filed on behalf of AO JAYVEON M. by Kelly Kapperman, Esq., the ADA having reserved the right to a hearing on the facts alleged in support of the People's Motion; and due deliberation having been had, the Court finds the following:

Procedural History

AO JAYVEON M. is charged under FYC-71407-26/001 with one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, a class C violent felony contrary to Penal Law § 265.03(3), one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree, a class C violent felony contrary to Penal Law § 265.02(3), and one count of Obstruction of Governmental Administration, a class A misdemeanor contrary to Penal Law § 195.05(1).

On May 11, 2026, this Court arraigned AO JAYVEON M. and released him under Probation supervision.

On May 15, 2026, the People conceded the 6-day review and indicated that they would make a motion under CPL § 722.23(1) requesting that this matter not be removed to Family Court. A scheduling order was placed on the record for the extraordinary circumstances motion. A Decision on Motion was scheduled for July 1, 2026.

Findings of Fact

It is alleged that on or about Sunday, May 10, 2026, a 911 caller advised that he was outside of the downtown library, under the overpass, six guys were smoking weed and arguing with him, and one male wearing all black displayed a pocketknife. Upon arrival at the scene, officers observed four males, including an individual later identified as Defendant who the People assert matched the call description. Bodycam footage reveals that Defendant was wearing a black coat, tan hoodie, and blue jeans. Officers asked the individuals to raise their arms. Defendant raised his left arm and grabbed the right side of his waistband with his right arm. An officer physically lifted Defendant's right arm above his head, and in doing so, Defendant's jacket lifted, revealing the black handle of a pistol in Defendant's waistband. In a matter of seconds, an officer recovered a semi-automatic pistol loaded with seven 9mm rounds in the magazine, and Defendant attempted to flee before being apprehended face down on the sidewalk. The Central Police Services Laboratory test fired the firearm, determined it to be operable and loaded.

Conclusions of Law

The Raise the Age Law defines a 16-year-old or 17-year-old person who was charged with a felony as an "adolescent offender" (CPL § 1.20 [44]; see Penal Law § 30.00 [1], [3] [a]). Following arraignment, the Youth Part shall order the removal of an Adolescent Offender matter to Family Court unless, within thirty calendar days of arraignment, the prosecutor moves to prevent the removal of the action to Family Court and establishes that extraordinary circumstances exist. CPL § 722.23(1)(a), (d).

The Court must consider the totality of the facts and circumstances before it to determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist that should prevent removal to Family Court. People v Guerrero, 2026 NY Slip Op 00826 [Ct App Feb. 17, 2026]. The term "extraordinary circumstances" is not defined in the Raise the Age Law. People v. Guerrero, 235 AD3d 1276, 1276 (4th Dept., 2025). "The legislative history for CPL § 722.23 reveals that, in making an extraordinary circumstances determination, courts should 'look at all the circumstances of the case, as well as ... all of the circumstances of the young person,' including both mitigating and aggravating factors." NY Assembly Debate on 2017 NY Assembly Bill A3009C, April 8, 2017 at 39; see id. at 40, 65); see also, People v. Guerrero, supra. The legislative history further provides that "the People would satisfy the 'extraordinary circumstances' standard where 'highly unusual and heinous facts are proven and there is strong proof that the young person is not amenable or would not benefit in any way from the heightened services in the family court.' " See, People v T.P., 73 Misc 3d 1215(A) (Nassau County Ct 2021).

The People argue that this matter should not be transferred to Family Court, alleging that Defendant's behavior was highly unusual and especially cruel and heinous. Defendant was outside of a public library, carrying a loaded and operable firearm, then instead of listening to officer commends, he attempted to flee. They allege that such behavior is alarming and concerning, especially at Defendant's young age of 16 years old.

Defendant contends that the People failed to identify any circumstance that meaningfully distinguishes this matter from an ordinary adolescent offender firearm-possession case. The body-worn camera footage does not depict Defendant threatening anyone. The People do not argue that officers recovered the knife the 911 caller alleged to exist. The location of this incident is not a pristine public space frequented exclusively by children and their families, but an urban corridor that is the subject of frequent police activity. Defendant further argues that the People's motion misstates the facts. The 911 caller described the suspect as wearing all black; however, Defendant wore a black coat and blue jeans. No witnesses identified Defendant as the individual described by the caller. Defendant also contends that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain and frisk Defendant in the first instance.

This Court agrees that extraordinary circumstances have not been proven. Unfortunately, the allegations asserted against Defendant are not uncommon in Youth Part. Further, there are potential factual weaknesses in this case. Only 4 individuals, not the 6 mentioned by the 911 caller, were present at the scene when police arrived. Defendant was not dressed in all black as the 911 caller asserts the suspect was wearing, and it is not alleged that a knife was recovered from Defendant, the other three individuals, or the scene. Moreover, Defendant places the legality of the police conduct during the incident in question. The People do not argue that anyone was injured or that any property was damaged. Defendant did not commit a series of crimes over multiple days. The recovered firearm is not alleged to have been used in furtherance of another crime. The People do not allege that Defendant was the ringleader of the alleged crime. This is Defendant's first case in Youth Part, and he has not been rearrested since he was released on Probation supervision. The People have not met their burden of proving that Defendant is not amenable or would not benefit in any way from the heightened services in the family court.

After considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that extraordinary circumstances do not exist to prevent the transfer of this action to Family Court. The People have not met their burden to prevent removal of this action to Family Court. This constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of this Court.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 1, 2026

ENTER,

HON. BRENDA M. FREEDMAN

Brenda M. Freedman, J.