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

The People having moved pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law, Article 722, § 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 Margaret D. Christ, Esq. (Assistant District Attorney), dated June 29, 2026; responsive papers dated July 6, 2026 having been filed by Matt Swerdlin, Esq. on behalf of AO DAMARION C.; 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 DAMARION C. is charged under FYC-71639-26/001 with two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree, a class D felony contrary to Penal Law § 265.02(8) & 20.00 and one count of Criminal Possession of a Firearm, a class E felony contrary to Penal Law § 265.01-B(1) & 20.00. On May 28, 2026, this Court arraigned Defendant and released him under Probation supervision. The People conceded the six-day review and agreed that this matter should proceed under CPL § 722.23(1). The Court set an extraordinary circumstances motion schedule and scheduled the decision to be rendered on July 13, 2026.

Findings of Fact

It is alleged that on May 28, 2026, law enforcement executed a search warrant at a single-family residence. The search warrant specifically authorized an immediate search and seizure of Defendant's adult brother and any person thereat or therein the premises. Defendant resides at the single-family residence subject to the search warrant. He was home when the warrant was executed and arrested along with his adult brother.

Upon execution of the search warrant, law enforcement recovered a large capacity .45 caliber Glock 24 round high capacity magazine from the floor in the upper rear bedroom, a plastic Ziplock baggie that contained a Glock 9mm high capacity magazine and a Glock auto sear attachment from the top drawer of the dresser in the upper rear bedroom, and a black Glock 21 pistol loaded with nine .45 caliber rounds in the magazine from inside a closet in the upper front bedroom.

The Central Police Services lab test fired the pistol and determined that it was operable. The People submitted a Laboratory Request for DNA testing on June 2, 2026, but the results are not yet available.

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. Id. "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 is merely 17 years old and was charged with possession of a loaded firearm and two extended magazines. This is problematic for the safety of Defendant and the community. The People further contend that removing this case before receiving the results of the DNA testing would serve an injustice to both parties to this case and removal of this matter to Family Court risks depreciating the public's confidence in the criminal justice system and increases the likelihood of recidivism based on the lack of consequence.

Defendant asserts that extraordinary circumstances are not present here, arguing that mere possession of a firearm is insufficient to prevent removal. He was not the intended target of the search warrant. Two other females present in the house at the time were not arrested or charged, including Defendant's mother. Defendant states that the People rushed to charge Defendant simply because he was a male occupant in a house where a search warrant was executed targeting someone else and a firearm was recovered. He proposes that the People could have waited to charge Defendant until after conducting their forensic review.

Pursuant to the Raise the Age legislation, this Court must remove this case to Family Court unless it determines that extraordinary circumstances exist that should prevent the transfer of this action. The People have failed to demonstrate the existence of extraordinary circumstances. Police executed a search warrant at a home where Defendant resides, and they recovered a firearm and large capacity magazines. Both the People and Defendant note that Defendant's older, adult brother, not Defendant, was the intended target of the search warrant. The People do not assert that Defendant was the ringleader of this crime. The firearm and magazines were recovered from two separate bedrooms, not Defendant's person. It is unknown whether either bedroom belonged to Defendant or why law enforcement arrested Defendant, but not his mother or the other female allegedly present in the home at that time. Unfortunately, it is inherently difficult for the People to obtain results of DNA lab testing in the statutory extraordinary circumstances motion timeline, and the statute does not toll the motion timeline for forensic testing.

The People have not proven that Defendant is not amenable or would not benefit in any way from the heightened services in the family court. This is Defendant's first case in Youth Part, the People do not argue that Defendant has a history of police contact, and this Court has not received a negative report from Probation since Defendant was released on Probation supervision. The goal of the Raise the Age legislation is to allow for greater treatment and rehabilitation of youth, rather than punishment. Family Court's services are individually catered toward reducing recidivism.

After examining all the circumstances of this case and this youth, this Court finds that extraordinary circumstances do not exist to prevent the transfer of this action to Family Court. The People did not meet 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 13, 2026

ENTER,

HON. BRENDA M. FREEDMAN

Brenda M. Freedman, J.