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 Alejandro Ocasio, Esq. (Assistant District Attorney), dated September 25, 2026; responsive papers not having been received on behalf of AO ZYIER R.; 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 ZYIER R. was charged under FYC-71781-26 with one count of Assault in the Second Degree, a class D felony in violation of Penal Law § 120.05(3). This Court arraigned Defendant on June 8, 2026, and released him under Probation supervision. The parties agreed upon and the Court ordered a competency evaluation pursuant to CPL § 730. On June 16, 2026, the People conceded the six-day review and time continued to toll for the results of the competency evaluation. On August 26, 2026, the competency report determined that AO ZYIER R. was not an incapacitated person as defined by CPL § 730. All parties agreed that this matter should proceed under CPL § 722.23(1). The Court set an extraordinary circumstances motion schedule with the decision to be rendered on October 13, 2026, with the parties waiving time as necessary.

Findings of Fact

It is alleged that on May 15, 2026, at approximately 8:30 p.m., while AO ZYIER R. was a patient at Erie County Medical Center's ("ECMC") psychiatric unit, AO ZYIER R. approached an ECMC employee ("Complainant") and began striking him numerous times with a closed fist about his head and face. It is alleged that AO ZYIER R. did so after asking for the time and waiting for the employee to look down at his watch. At least two additional hospital employees witnessed the attack and attempted to intervene. One witness provided a supporting deposition corroborating the events. That same witness reports that AO ZYIER R. then used his feet to kick Complainant in the head and face as he lay on the ground. As a result of the attack, Complainant required immediate medical treatment and sustained several injuries including a blood-shot eye, right-shoulder pain, and throbbing jaw pain. ECMC surveillance captured the incident.

Further, it is alleged that on May 20, 2026, also at ECMC, AO ZYIER R. approached a second victim and struck him in the back of the head and neck with a closed fist. The victim reported severe pain and suffered a headache. It appears this occurred in the dining hall of ECMC. Defense counsel confirmed that AO ZYIER R. was still an admitted patient at the time of this incident.

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 especially cruel and heinous. His behavior demonstrates that Defendant cunningly lured Complainant with a distraction by asking him for the time, before initiating a senseless attack on a public health care worker. The People argue that only five days later, Defendant subjected another unsuspecting victim to a similar attack, and such violence is indicative of an offender who attacks without reason or provocation. Moreover, the People contend that the nature of and time between the attacks provide aggravating factors that militate in favor of finding that extraordinary circumstances exist.

Defendant did not provide mitigating circumstances for this Court to consider.

This Court finds that extraordinary circumstances do not exist to warrant this case remaining in the Youth Part. Although frightening for the Victims, the facts of this case as they relate to AO ZYIER R. are not highly unusual or especially heinous. The injuries do not appear to be severe and unfortunately, it is not unusual for health care workers in ECMC's psychiatric unit to endure wanton attacks from their patients. Though AO ZYIER R. was charged with a second assault merely five days later, this Court does not find that he was on a spree committing a series of crimes over a series of days. Further, this Court finds that Defendant's status as a patient seeking psychiatric treatment at the time of this event serves as a mitigating circumstance of this particular youth.

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. Though Defendant has a minor history in Family Court, he does not have a criminal history or history in Youth Part. AO ZYIER R. has ample opportunity to take advantage of the rehabilitative services and resources Family Court provides.

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: October 13, 2026

ENTER,

HON. BRENDA M. FREEDMAN

Brenda M. Freedman, J.