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 Nicholas J. Marino, Esq. (Assistant District Attorney), dated September 25, 2026; responsive papers by Seth J. Seegert, Esq. dated October 2, 2026 having been filed on behalf of AO DARRYLE B., 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 DARRYLE B. was charged under FYC-72021-26/001 with one count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Second Degree, a class C felony, contrary to Penal Law § 165.52, Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree, a class D felony, in violation of Penal Law § 120.25, Criminal Mischief in the Second Degree, a class D felony, in violation of Penal Law § 145.10, and Unlawfully Fleeing a Police Officer, a class A misdemeanor, in violation of Penal Law § 270.25 for an incident that occurred on June 24, 2026. He was also charged under FYC-72023-26/001 with numerous violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law in connection with the same incident. Defendant was arraigned on these charges on June 25, 2026, released on his own recognizance, and directed to appear on July 6, 2026 for a six-day review.

AO DARRYLE B. failed to appear in court on July 6, 2026. The People conceded the six-day review, and the Court issued a bench warrant for Defendant.

On July 31, 2026, AO DARRYLE B. was returned on his bench warrant and the Court arraigned him on new charges. Under FYC-72539-26/001, Defendant was charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, a class C felony in violation of Penal Law § 265.03(3) for an incident that occurred on July 30, 2026. The People also conceded the six-day review and requested an Extraordinary Circumstances motion schedule. The Court remanded AO DARRYLE B. On August 5, 2026, a Felony Hearing was conducted and Defendant was held over for the Grand Jury. AO DARRYLE B. was subsequently indicted and was arraigned on this matter (IND-72972-26/001) on September 14, 2026.

On August 25, 2026, AO DARRYLE B. was arrested for an incident that occurred on July 6, 2026 and charged with Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree, a class D felony in violation of Penal Law § 165.50 & 20.00, and Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Third Degree, a class A misdemeanor in violation of Penal Law § 165.05(1) & 20.00. On consent of counsel, the Court set a new extraordinary circumstances motion schedule to coordinate all of AO DARRYLE B.'s pending cases, with a decision to be issued on October 13, 2026.

Findings of Fact FYC-72021-26/001 and FYC-72023-26/001

It is alleged that on June 21, 2026, Complainant reported that his blue 2026 BMW was missing. He did not give anyone permission to take, operate, exercise control over, ride in or otherwise use his vehicle. On June 24, 2026, Buffalo Police Officers were dispatched to a call for a blue BMW driving in a reckless fashion. Officers located the vehicle and attempted to initiate a traffic stop. The blue BMW, operated by AO DARRYLE B., fled from officers at a high rate of speed, drove on sidewalks, changed lanes unsafely, made at least one illegal U-Turn, failed to use its designated lane, passed a vehicle on the right, and struck a police patrol vehicle in the front and rear passenger doors, causing approximately $2,000 in damages. The vehicle ultimately came to a stop and AO DARRYLE B. was taken into custody. After searching the vehicle incident to tow, officers recovered three credit cards and a New York State identification card, none of which belonged to Defendant.

Findings of Fact FYC-72866-26/001

It is alleged that on July 4, 2026 at approximately 1:11 PM, an unknown person entered Complainant's work vehicle, a 2026 Ford Explorer, and stole it. Complainant did not give anyone permission to possess, take, ride in, or operate the vehicle. On July 6, 2026, at approximately 8:22 PM, AO DARRYLE B. and a co-defendant arrived at a store in Complainant's vehicle and were observed on video surveillance entering the store, using credit cards to make purchases, exiting the store, and driving away in Complainant's vehicle.

Findings of Fact IND-72972-26/001

It is alleged that on July 30, 2026, Buffalo Police Officers were participating in a multi-jurisdictional stolen vehicle detail. A Buffalo Police Lieutenant received information that a male he knew to be AO DARRYLE B. and a co-defendant were in the area of a specific intersection. He knew the Defendant had several outstanding warrants. The Lieutenant broadcast this information over the police radio. Another detective was in the area; they observed AO DARRYLE B., a co-defendant, and a third person enter a gray Equinox. The detective followed the Equinox to a fast-food restaurant. An officer approached the Equinox when it stopped at the restaurant's drive-thru, removed Defendant from a passenger seat of the vehicle, and placed him under arrest for his warrants. While searching AO DARRYLE B., the Officer recovered a loaded Sig Sauer pistol from his waistband. The firearm was tested and found to be operable.

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, based on the totality of the circumstances, these matters meet the standard for this Court to find that extraordinary circumstances exist. From June 24, 2026 to July 30, 2026, AO DARRYLE B. engaged in a pattern of escalating criminal behavior, which led him to be charged in three separate and distinct criminal transactions within a short time span. In the first case, Defendant drove a stolen vehicle in a reckless and unsafe manner at extremely high rates of speed, struck a patrol vehicle with his vehicle, and continued to flee officers. Law enforcement deployed the AIR1 helicopter to allow law enforcement to pursue him as safely as possible. The People argue that such conduct rises to the level of heinous. In the second incident, AO DARRYLE B. and a co-defendant were in possession and control of a stolen vehicle. The incident occurred the same day that Defendant failed to appear in court, and a warrant was issued for him. The third incident demonstrates a clear escalation of criminal behavior, as AO DARRYLE B. was found in possession of a loaded and operable firearm. The People further argue that Defendant is not amenable to or may not benefit from the heightened services and rehabilitative efforts of Family Court. In March of 2024, Defendant was charged with Robbery in the Second Degree as a juvenile offender. Defendant pleaded guilty to Attempted Robbery in the Second Degree in June, 2024, which resulted in a removal to Family Court as an operation of law. AO DARRYLE B. has had the benefit of Family Court services since at least that time including a twelve (12) month placement with OCFS. The People liken this case to People v. Guerrero, supra, as Defendant's repeated and escalating behavior goes beyond reoffending and rises to the level of chronic, repeated reoffending.

Defendant contends that extraordinary circumstances do not exist to prevent removal of these matters to Family Court. With respect to the first case, Defendant alleges that there are no allegations of personal injury and the severity of the property damage is unknown. In the second case, AO DARRYLE B. is merely observed on video exiting a stationary, allegedly stolen vehicle. There are no allegations of reckless driving, personal injury, or property damage. The People do not even claim that Defendant knew or should have known that the vehicle was stolen. In the third case, the weapon recovered was not displayed or brandished, nor is it alleged to have been used in any crimes. The pistol was allegedly found in AO DARRYLE B.'s pocket after a traffic stop and subsequent pat down search of his person. Defendant argues that the severity of the offense in Guerrero (a violent, armed home invasion) was much greater than the conduct in the cases at bar (car thefts and weapon possession), and this difference, which the People concede, should not be minimized.

After considering the totality of the circumstances of this youth and these cases, this Court finds that extraordinary circumstances exist to prevent removal to Family Court. In 2024, Defendant was charged as a Juvenile Offender with committing Robbery in the Second Degree. That case was removed to Family Court by operation of law after a guilty plea to Attempted Robbery in the Second Degree. Following that removal, Defendant was placed for one year in an OCFS placement, the highest level of service available to Family Court. A year after his discharge from that placement, AO DARRYLE B. again appeared before Youth Part and accrued charges on three separate criminal transactions, which occurred within a five-week period, between June 24, 2026 and July 30, 2026. In the June 24, 2026 incident, AO DARRYLE B. recklessly drove a stolen vehicle, led police on a high-speed chase, and struck a patrol vehicle, causing property damage. Youth in this area are being killed in stolen cars due to reckless and unauthorized driving; AO DARRYLE B. is fortunate no one was injured here. AO DARRYLE B. then failed to appear for the six-day review on that matter, which led to the issuance of a warrant. Mere hours after he failed to appear in court, AO DARRYLE B. committed another crime and was discovered in another stolen vehicle. The warrant remained outstanding for more than three weeks. AO DARRYLE B. did not voluntarily surrender; the warrant was only recalled when he was arrested on new charges, this time involving possession of a loaded and operable pistol. AO DARRYLE B. shows a clear pattern of repeated and escalating criminal behavior.

AO DARRYLE B. will not benefit from further Family Court intervention. Despite prior leniency afforded to him and the benefit of prior Family Court services, including their highest level of service, an OCFS placement for a year, Defendant continued to commit multiple crimes, and attempted to evade both the law and the justice system. Removal of this case would serve no purpose, as he has exhausted the resources provided in Juvenile Delinquency matters and has shown a blatant disregard for the rehabilitative opportunities afforded him.

The facts herein, when taken together, are extraordinary. The aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors. The People have met their burden to prevent removal of these actions to Family Court. This constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of this Court.

SO ORDERED.

ENTER,

HON. BRENDA M. FREEDMAN

Brenda M. Freedman, J.