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

The People having moved pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 722.23(1) 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 July 24, 2026; responsive papers by Giovanni Genovese, Esq. dated July 30, 2026 having been filed on behalf of AO MAHAMED U.; 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 MAHAMED U. is charged under FYC-71961-26/001 with one count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree, a class D felony, contrary to Penal Law §§ 165.50 & 20.00, and one count of Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, a class A misdemeanor, contrary to Penal Law §§ 165.05(1) & 20.00.

On June 18, 2026, this Court arraigned AO MAHAMED U.; he entered a plea of not guilty, accepted voluntary Probation services, and was released on his own recognizance. The parties waived time for the six-day review. On June 29, 2026, the People conceded the six-day review under CPL § 722.23(2). The Court determined that this action should proceed in accordance with CPL § 722.23(1) and set an extraordinary circumstances motion schedule, with a decision on motion to be rendered on August 19, 2026. The Court set nominal bail, as Defendant was remanded on a Family Court matter.

Findings of Fact

On June 15, 2026, Complainant reported that his vehicle was stolen without his permission. It is alleged that on June 18, 2026, at 5:58 AM, while investigating a shots fired call, officers observed Defendant driving Complainant's stolen vehicle the wrong way down a one-way street in the vicinity of the shots fired call. Officers activated their overhead lights to initiate a traffic stop; however, the stolen vehicle fled and ultimately crashed into an occupied vehicle while turning left from the middle lane. After the accident, Defendant and four known passengers exited the vehicle and fled on foot before they were apprehended. Two additional passengers were observed fleeing from the stolen vehicle, but officers were unable to apprehend them.

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 Defendant's behavior was highly unusual and especially cruel and heinous. They contend that Defendant was merely 16 years old at the time of the incident, and he drove a stolen vehicle with multiple passengers the wrong way on a one-way street, fled from police, and turned left from the middle lane in front of a civilian vehicle, causing an accident. They argue that he disregarded the safety of his passengers, law enforcement, and other drivers. They further assert that Defendant is not amenable to Family Court services. He had a pending Family Court matter at the time of this offense, and if he was willing to avail himself of the heightened services and rehabilitative efforts available in Family Court, he would have taken advantage of same prior to these charges.

Defendant contends that the People failed to demonstrate that his alleged behavior was "cruel and heinous" or "highly usual". He argues that the theft of automobiles is a commonly charged crime in Youth Part, and it has occurred at a high rate since the enactment of the Raise the Age legislation. Defendant states that he is currently receiving the most heightened level of services available in Family Court, as he is presently placed in the custody of the Office of Children and Family Services for one year. He requests the opportunity to complete and benefit from that program.

After considering the totality of the circumstances of this case and this youth, this Court cannot describe it as extraordinary. The facts of this case are not highly unusual. This was a single incident; Defendant is not alleged to have committed a series of crimes. Defendant was not in possession of a firearm. The People do not allege that anyone was injured during this incident. Defendant caused physical damage to both the stolen vehicle and the vehicle he crashed into; however, the financial damage incurred by the vehicle owners is unknown. Although he was the driver of the vehicle, he is not specifically alleged to be the ringleader of this crime, and it is unknown whether Defendant was the person who stole the vehicle.

While the facts of this case are not unusual, Defendant has nearly exhausted the resources of Family Court. He admits that, during the pendency of this case, he agreed to be placed in the custody of the Office of Children and Family Services on his Family Court matter. However, this is Defendant's first case in Youth Part, and it is not alleged that he had received Family Court services over a period of many years, as was the case in People v Guerrero, 2026 NY Slip Op 00826 [Ct App Feb. 17, 2026], where, over five years of involvement in the criminal justice system, the defendant received Family Court services, but made no appreciable positive response, and continued to engage in escalating criminal behavior. Under the Raise the Age legislation, this Court finds that Defendant could still benefit from further Family Court intervention.

Ultimately, the aggravating factors here do not outweigh the mitigating factors. This Court finds that the People did not meet their burden to prevent removal of this action to Family Court. The totality of the circumstances do not warrant retention of this case in Youth Part. This constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of this Court.

SO ORDERED.

ENTER,

HON. BRENDA M. FREEDMAN

Brenda M. Freedman, J.