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 Christ, Esq. (Assistant District Attorney), dated October 26, 2026; responsive papers by Giovanni Genovese, Esq. dated October 31, 2026, having been filed on behalf of AO JAVEON S.; 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 JAVEON S. was charged under FYC-73255-26 with one count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree, a class D felony in violation of Penal Law §§ 165.50(3) & 20.00 and one count of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, a class D felony, in violation of Penal Law §§ 155.35(1) & 20.00. AO JAVEON S. was also charged under FYC-73266-26 with one count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Second Degree, a class C felony, in violation of Penal Law §§ 165.52 & 20.00, and one count of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, a class C felony, in violation of Penal Law §§ 155.40(1) & 20.00, as well as one count of Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Third Degree, a class A misdemeanor, in violation of Penal Law §§ 165.05(1) & 20.00. This Court arraigned Defendant on September 28, 2026, and released him on his own recognizance. On that same date, 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 with the decision to be rendered on November 9, 2026. AO JAVEON S.'s responsive papers were filed two days late; however, the People had no objection to the late filing. Accordingly, the Court will consider Defense's Reply Affirmation.

Findings of Fact

It is alleged that on September 25, 2026, at approximately 12:45 a.m., complainant's black 2016 Acura MDX was stolen from the front of his home in the City of Buffalo. The complainant's Ring camera revealed three individuals entering the vehicle and driving off.

The next day, on September 26, 2026, at approximately 7:00 a.m., a second complainant observed AO JAVEON S. along with the other individuals, exiting the stolen black 2016 Acura MDX before entering her own vehicle, a gray 2026 BMW RDX, that was parked in her driveway. The second complainant attempted to pursue the perpetrators by following them in the abandoned Acura but lost them near G St. in the City of Buffalo. Moments later, Buffalo Police located the second complainant's BMW parked nearby. AO JAVEON S. and the juvenile co-defendant were standing near the vehicle removing property from it. Second complainant's neighbor observed the defendants enter her BMW and provided a sworn statement to law enforcement. An additional witness alerted law enforcement to the BMW's final location, provided physical descriptions and a sworn statement. Neither complainant gave anyone permission to take their vehicles.

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. Defendant was merely 16 years old and in possession of a stolen car along with a juvenile co-defendant. After stealing one car, he then took another and led chase through a residential neighborhood before taking to the expressway. The People argue that his actions evince a perilous disregard for the safety of himself and other drivers. Furthermore, Defendant committed a series of crimes not in a series of days, but within mere hours, underscoring the senseless nature of his crimes. The People argue that Defendant is not amenable to Family Court services because at the time of the instant offense, Defendant had an outstanding warrant on a pending Family Court matter.

Defendant asserts that automobile theft is not "highly unusual" or "cruel and heinous". To the contrary, it is a common occurrence. The Legislature intended for such crime to be removed to Family Court. The alleged theft here did not involve a police chase, and the Sheriff's Department helicopter was not deployed. There were no car crashes, and no one was injured. At most, there was minimal damage to one of the vehicle's tires. He further argues that Family Court has escalating levels of services, and those services have not been exhausted.

This Court finds that the facts of this case are not highly unusual or especially heinous. Although this case did not involve a police chase, the second complainant attempted to pursue the defendant after he took her vehicle, which could have resulted in injury. Thankfully, no physical injuries were reported. The People do not allege that Defendant caused significant damage to any personal property. No firearms were involved. Defendant is also not alleged to be the ringleader of the crimes. Although two cars were stolen within hours, that does not rise to a series of crimes as contemplated by the legislature.

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. Defendant has minimal history in Youth Part and Family Court, with only one prior removal dating back to August 2026. AO JAVEON S. has not exhausted the rehabilitative services that 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: November 9, 2026

ENTER,

HON. BRENDA M. FREEDMAN

Brenda M. Freedman, J.