Supreme Court, New York County

Decided on March 2, 2026

Indictment No. 73485/23

Juan M. Merchan, J.

[*1]

Part I: BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Under Indictment number 73485/23, K.C. ("Defendant") is charged with Assault in the Second Degree in violation of Penal Law ("PL") § 120.05; and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree in violation of P.L. § 265.01(2). The charges arise from an incident that allegedly took place on July 11th, 2023, in which K.C. is accused of stabbing an individual in the arm.

K.C. was incarcerated for 37 days following his arrest. Defendant's Motion pg. 13. After appearing several times in Part 81, the matter was adjourned for consideration to the Manhattan Mental Health Court (MMHC). Since his arraignment in 2023, the Defendant has sustained no new arrests. Id. Further, he has participated in services provided by the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES) Nathanial Community Success (NCS) program since approximately August 2023. Id.

On July 9, 2025, defense counsel was granted leave by this Court to file the instant motion to dismiss the indictment. Id. at 6. On August 20, 2025, defense counsel, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("C.P.L.") § 210.40, submitted a notice of motion to dismiss in the interest of justice (otherwise known as a "Clayton Motion"). In the alternative, defense counsel requested a hearing. Id. at 1. The People filed their opposition to the motion on October 8, 2025.

On January 21, 2026, this Court rendered its decision from the bench and indicated that a written decision would follow. The following constitutes this Court's Decision and Order.

PART II: THE CLAYTON MOTION

CPL § 210.40(1) provides courts the authority to dismiss an indictment, or any count [*2]thereof, in furtherance of justice, even though there may be no basis for dismissal as a matter of law. A dismissal in furtherance of justice relies solely upon "principles of justice, not the legal or factual merits of the charge or even on the guilt or innocence of the defendant." People v Clayton, 41 AD2d 204, 206 [2d Dept 1973]. CPL § 210.40(1) sets forth ten factors a court must, to the extent applicable, consider individually and collectively when exercising its discretion whether to grant a motion to dismiss in the interests of justice. See Clayton, 41 AD2d 204. Those factors are:

(a) the seriousness and circumstances of the offense;

(b) the extent of harm caused by the offense;

(c) the evidence of guilt, whether admissible or inadmissible at trial;

(d) the history, character and condition of the defendant;

(e) any exceptionally serious misconduct of law enforcement personnel in the investigation, arrest and prosecution of the defendant;

(f) the purpose and effect of imposing upon the defendant a sentence authorized for the offense;

(g) the impact of a dismissal upon the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system;

(h) the impact of a dismissal on the safety or welfare of the community;

(i) where the court deems it appropriate, the attitude of the complainant or victim with respect to the motion;

(j) any other relevant fact indicating that a judgment of conviction would serve no useful purpose.

Dismissals in the interests of justice should be issued sparingly and granted in the "'rare' and 'unusual' case where it 'cries out for fundamental justice beyond the confines of conventional considerations' (citations omitted)." People v Pittman, 228 AD2d 225, 226 [1st Dept 1996]. Such motions should be granted only where there is "some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution of the defendant upon such indictment would constitute or result in injustice." People v Rahmen, 302 AD2d 408, 409 [2d Dept 2003].

PART III: ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Defendant argues that his Clayton Motion should be granted for the following reasons as delineated in CPL § 170.40. The People's position with respect to each factor is also indicated below:

a. The Seriousness and Circumstances of the Offense

Defendant argues "that while the injuries to the complainant's forearm caused 'significant pain'" and resulted in medical treatment in the form of six stitches, the injuries were not described as life threatening. Id. at 14.

The People argue that the charges against the Defendant are serious and commensurate with his actions. Thus, the conduct bringing about such charges weigh against dismissal of the indictment. People's Response pg. 7.

b. The Extent of Harm Caused by the Offense

Defendant points to the fact that the criminal court complaint contains "no allegations [*3]that [the complainant] experienced a substantial risk of death, serious disfigurement, protracted disfigurement, impairment of health, loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ," or that the complainant sustained any enduring inability to work or experienced any long-term or significant disruptions to his life. Defendant's Motion pg. 15.

The People note that "the [D]efendant used a knife to stab another individual, cutting him, and requiring him to receive treatment at a hospital." People's Response pg. 7. They submit that the physical harm inflicted by the Defendant should be weighed against dismissing the indictment in the interest of justice. Id.

c. The Evidence of Guilt, Whether Admissible or Inadmissible at Trial

To be found guilty of Assault in the Second Degree pursuant to P.L. § 120.05(2), a defendant must intend to cause physical injury. Defendant argues that "[g]iven the limitations of his cognitive processing and his severe intellectual disabilities," a finder of fact would find it difficult to believe that the Defendant could form the requisite intent necessary to be found guilty of Assault in the Second Degree. Defendant's Motion pg. 16. Defendant asserts that the People would likely be unable to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The People respond by listing the evidence that they contend, supports a guilty verdict. First, the Port Authority surveillance footage (provided to the court in Exhibits 1A — 1F) depicts the Defendant entering the bus terminal and then running out of the Port Authority onto 9th Avenue. He then walks behind a truck, re-enters the Port Authority and walks toward the Port Authority police station where he can be observed speaking with police officers, who eventually frisk him and place him in handcuffs. People's Response pgs. 8-9. Second, a 911 call placed by an eyewitness, where the caller requests medical assistance for a man who had just been stabbed, and identified the assailant as a short black male wearing a light gray hoodie and black pants. Id. Next, the People provide the medical records detailing the treatment of the Complainant. Id. The People also point to photographs of the Defendant's bloodstained sweatshirt and a knife recovered from beneath a box truck on 9th Avenue. Id. Finally, the People argue that the evidence is corroborated by the Complainant's sworn testimony before the grand jury. People's Response pg. 10. Specifically, the testimony alleges that the Complainant was waiting in line for a bus at the Port Authority when the Defendant approached him and stabbed him in the forearm with a knife. Id. The People argue that the totality of this evidence should be considered when determining whether the indictment should be dismissed in the interest of justice, and that such evidence weighs against doing so. People's Response pg. 7. However, the People offer no response to Defendant's claim that he lacked the ability to form the necessary intent.

d. The History, Character and Condition of the Defendant

Defendant states that his "history, character and condition clearly demonstrate that continued prosecution of the felony charges would constitute an injustice" and mitigates towards a dismissal of the charges. Defendant's Motion pg. 16. In substance, Defendant highlights that he is a survivor of complex trauma; medical crises in his infancy; verbal, physical, emotional and sexual abuse; systemic neglect; and homelessness. Id. at 16-22; Defendant's Exhibit A. Notably, the Defendant was abandoned by his mother at age five and was sexually abused by his maternal grandfather for ten years, beginning when he was five years of age. Defendant's Motion pg. 17 - 18. At age 18, Defendant became homeless and dropped out of school. Id. Nonetheless, Defendant immediately obtained employment at various locations including a sandwich shop [*4]and a Home Depot, where he worked until his arrest in July of 2023. Id.

Following his release from Riker's Island, he engaged with the CASES NCS program and attended out-patient therapeutic services at Options Counseling Center (OCC) in New Jersey. Id. at 20 -21. The Defendant has remained engaged with CASES NCS and his therapy at OCC. Id. After the Defendant's case was transferred to the MHC, an evaluation by Empower Assist Care (EAC) (the MHC clinical staff) was ordered by this Court. Id. at 4. The Defendant cooperatively participated in the evaluations. Id. at 12. In July of 2024, the Defendant was placed in Housing Works Emergency and Transitional Housing in Fresh Meadows, Queens where there are nursing staff and licensed clinical social workers who assist with the Defendant's medical, psychiatric, and behavioral health treatment services. Id. at 21. The Defendant is currently awaiting acceptance for placement in the Human Resources Administration Office of Supportive/Affordable Housing and Services and the Center for Urban Community Services (CUCS), an Intensive Mobile Treatment (IMT), and the Office of People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD)FN1. Id. at 22.

The Defendant has been diagnosed with multiple physical ailments, intellectual and cognitive difficulties and mental illness. Id. at 23. Defendant's physical medical issues include epilepsy, and digestive system ailments which include persistent nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. Id. Furthermore, Defendant deals with throat pain, chest pain, malaise and fatigue, ulcers, muscle spasms and high-blood sugar/diabetes. Id.

In addition to the physical challenges, he also struggles with intellectual and cognitive concerns, specifically, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Id. While incarcerated, Defendant was diagnosed with severe functional impairment and his thought process was described as elementary. Id.; Defense Exhibit A, p. 11. During his intake at Riker's Island in July of 2023, Correctional Health Services (CHS) noted diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder, ASD, ADHD-C, other specified trauma and stressor- related disorder, and classified the Defendant as Severely Mentally Ill (SMI). Id. at 25. In October and November of 2024, the Defendant underwent psychological testing administered by EAC that measured his cognitive functioning, reading, spelling and math skills, and adaptive functioning. Id. at 24. Clinical findings from the tests found that the Defendant's "abilities to read and write fell within the 'Extremely Low range performance'; for spelling, below the skills typical of a child in early kindergarten; and for reading comprehension, equivalent to a child in early kindergarten." Id. Testing also "showed [the Defendant's] overall level of intellectual functioning to be in the 'Extremely Low' range, with a Full-Scale IQ score of 49, which indicates Moderate Intellectual Disability." Id.

Finally, before his arrest in the instant matter, Defendant had only been arrested two other times, and he has no convictions. Id. at 34. Ultimately, Defendant argues that his history, character and condition should be considered by the Court as factors supporting dismissal of the charges.

The People submit that the history, character, and condition of the Defendant are to be taken into consideration by the Court, and acknowledge that the Defendant has "deep trauma" relating to his medical, intellectual, and psychological hardships. People's Response pg. 11. However, the People believe that these challenges do not weigh in favor of dismissing the indictment, but fail to elaborate or explain their reasoning. Id.

e. Any Exceptionally Serious Misconduct of Law Enforcement Personnel in the Investigation, Arrest and Prosecution of the Defendant

Both parties agree there is no evidence of law enforcement misconduct. Defendant's Motion pg. 33; People's Response pg. 11.

f. The Purpose and Effect of Imposing Upon the Defendant a Sentence Authorized for the Offense

Given his medical, intellectual, and psychological challenges, both parties agree that the established purposes of imposing a carceral sentence (to rehabilitate, punish and deter) would not be achieved by sentencing this Defendant to a term of imprisonment. People's Response pg. 11-12; Defendant's Motion pg. 33.

Defendant argues that there is no just purpose for imposing a conviction upon the Defendant. Defendant's Motion pg. 33. When considering punishment as an impetus for the imposition of sentence, Defendant states that he has already spent over 30 days in custody, appeared in court voluntarily approximately 23 times, and demonstrated compliance with CASES' supervised release. He has also voluntarily participated with mental health treatment, substance use counseling and medical services. Id. Further, the Defendant was screened and recommended for participation in the MMHC by the District Attorney of New York (DANY) and MMHC clinical staff. Id. Defendant represents that he is eager to plead and participate in MHC but has been prevented from full participation by virtue of his intellectual disability, cognitive impairment, mental health, and physical health issues. Id. at 34. Further, Defendant claims he has confronted bureaucratic challenges when attempting to connect with suitable services for his intellectual disabilities and other medical diagnoses. Id. For two years, since his release from Rikers Island, Defendant has been monitored by this and other courts and has participated in programming. Id.

Regarding the deterrent aim of incarceration, Defendant argues that the assistance he has received from therapeutic and supportive services since his release have been a greater deterrent than incarceration. Perhaps most importantly, he has not been arrested or convicted of any crime in the last two years. Id. Defendant stresses that if he were to be convicted here, he would lose critical connections to treatment, and his applications to permanent supportive housing would be nullified. Id. Because the services Defendant currently receives have supported his abstention from criminality, Defendant argues that there is no deterrent value to imposing an incarceratory sentence. Id. at 35. Indeed, Defendant argues that the adverse consequences of incarceration to the Defendant's intellectual, cognitive, mental and physical health would far outweigh any benefits society might derive. Id.

The People agree and concede that "the defendant faces a number of medical, intellectual and psychological challenges. Given these issues unique to the defendant, the People do not believe that the purposes of imposing a carceral sentence would be met by sentencing this defendant to a term of imprisonment." People's Response pg. 12.

g. The Impact of a Dismissal Upon the Confidence of the Public in the Criminal Justice System

The Defendant argues that the public's confidence in the criminal justice system would be greatly strengthened by a dismissal of the charges in the interest of justice. Defendant's Motion pg. 39. They cite People v Ortiz when stating, "In the eyes of the public, the criminal justice system can only be enhanced where knowledge that reason and compassion, not pointless prosecution or punishment, guide responsible judicial decision-making." People v Ortiz, [*5]N.Y.L.J., Feb. I6, 1990, p.24, col.4 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Co.). Defendant again argues that the "dire and adverse consequences" to the Defendant's mental health outweigh any benefit of continued prosecution, and thus the charges should be dismissed. Defendant's Motion pg. 39.

The People agree with the Defendant's belief that some members of the public would support the dismissal of the indictment. People's Response pg. 12. However, the People argue that there are some who would support the opposite; that there may be members of the public who would be "perturbed by the violent nature of the offense charged in the indictment, [and] who would not support outright dismissal of the indictment." Id. The People do not ultimately conclude whether this factor weighs in favor of or against dismissal. Id.

h. The Impact of a Dismissal on the Safety or Welfare of the Community

Defendant states that there is no allegation that the Defendant is a malevolent individual who poses a grave risk of danger to the community. Defendant's Motion pg. 36. In support, Defendant reiterates that he has no criminal record. Id. Defendant believes that society will not be threatened if he no longer faces the possibility of conviction. Id. Indeed, the evaluation conducted by EAC identified certain factors that "reduce his overall risk for violence." Id. at 37; Defense Exhibit A, EAC Evaluation, p. 22, paragraph 5, Lines 2-4. The report notes that while [the Defendant] presents a 'moderate risk to severe violence', this is only 'without appropriate and sustained intervention' and confirms that 'his risk of future violence can be mitigated through intensive therapeutic intervention, ongoing supervision, and the development of more prosocial relationships, alongside meaningful hobbies that promote self-esteem and proactive coping skills." Id.; Defense Exhibit A, pg. 26. When the Defendant was homeless in the summer of 2024, "he sustained no new charges, met many of his treatment obligations mandated by the Court and [] engaged in prosocial behaviors like securing employment and connecting with peers." Id. at 38.

The People recognize that this is the first time that the Defendant has been arrested for a violent crime and that his only previous contacts with the justice system were for fare evasion. People's Response pg. 12. The People also acknowledge that since being arrested and engaging in treatment, the Defendant has had no further contacts with law enforcement. Id. While the People do support a programmatic approach to help the Defendant advance in treatment, the People do not believe that dismissing the indictment before a mandate has been entered will advance the safety or welfare of the community and thus argue that this factor does not weigh in favor of dismissing the charges against the Defendant. Id.

i. Where the Court Deems it Appropriate, the Attitude of the Complainant or Victim with Respect to the Motion

Defendant is not aware of any positive or negative attitudes of the Complainant with respects to this motion. Defendant's Motion pg. 39. The People have not been able to contact the Complainant and thus have not obtained his opinion on the matter. People's Response pg. 13. Accordingly, neither party argues that this factor weighs in favor of or against dismissal.

j. Any Other Relevant Fact Indicating That a Judgment of Conviction Would Serve No Useful Purpose

Finally, Defendant argues that continued prosecution of this matter serves no useful purpose and that the interests of society and of the criminal justice system are not served by incarcerating an individual who stands to suffer grave harm to his mental and physical health. Defendant's Motion pg. 39. Defendant submits that he has already suffered and lost a great deal, as demonstrated by the Psychological Evaluation conducted by EAC. Id. at 40. Additional [*6]punishment, he argues, risks further deteriorating the Defendant's already poor intellectual, cognitive, mental and physical health, and would be unnecessary and unjust. Id.

Similarly, the People recognize that ongoing prosecution of the Defendant may negatively impact his mental, physical, and psychological wellbeing. People's Response pg. 13. However, the People make no statement on whether this factor should weigh against dismissing the charges. Id.

PART IV: APPLICATION OF CLAYTON FACTORS

"When deciding a motion to dismiss in the interest of justice, it is not necessary to engage in a point-by-point 'catechistic' discussion of all ten factors." People v Rickert, 58 NY2d 122, 128 [1983]. The Court need only "consider the factors 'individually and collectively' in making a value judgment that is based upon striking a sensitive balance between the interest of the individual and those of the state." People v Harmon, 181 AD2d 34,35 [1992]. This Court will now apply Defendant's claims and the People's responses to the Clayton factors.

a. The seriousness and circumstances of the offense.

The record before this Court clearly demonstrates that the Defendant was facing mental and physical health challenges at the time of the incident. The circumstances offer a possible explanation as to why the Defendant may have responded as he did to what was apparently an argument. Nonetheless, although the injury inflicted was not life threatening, the offense, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, would constitute a violent felony. Accordingly, this factor in the Court's view does not weigh heavily in favor of or against dismissal in the interests of justice. Again, while the Complainant's injuries were not serious and the circumstances indicate that the Defendant was experiencing serious psychological and emotional distress at the time of the offense, the conduct itself if proven would constitute a violent felony. Therefore, this factor is neutral.

b. The extent of harm caused by the offense.

The Defendant allegedly stabbed the Complainant in the arm while arguing in a public area of the Port Authority. The Complainant will likely bear a scar from this incident and in the future may experience trauma or fear when in public spaces or while using public transportation. The alleged assault caused physical and likely, emotional harm. Therefore, this factor favors denial of the motion.

c. The evidence of guilt, whether admissible or inadmissible at trial.

Defendant asserts that he did not possess the requisite intent to be found guilty of Assault in the Second Degree and that the People would be hard pressed to prove this element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The People argue that the totality of the evidence establishes Defendant's guilt. However, the People fail to respond specifically to the Defendant's argument regarding the intent element of the offense.

Given the Defendant's mental health diagnoses, it is quite possible that he did not intend to cause physical injury and that the People would be unable to prove this element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The People fail to address how the Defendant's severe intellectual disabilities and mental illness might impact upon their ability to prove the case. Because it is quite possible that the People would be unable to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, this factor weighs in favor of dismissing the charges against the Defendant.

d. The history, character and condition of the defendant.

Defendant has presented extensive records documenting his mental, emotional, cognitive [*7]and physical disabilities, as well as his lived traumas. The People do not directly address why these disabilities, and hardships should not weigh in favor of dismissal.

The Defendant has faced numerous challenges throughout his life. He and his twin sister were born prematurely and abandoned by their mother at the age of five. When he was sent to live with his maternal grandparents, the Defendant became a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of his grandfather which he endured for ten years. During his childhood, he did not receive the aide and treatment necessary to address his psychological and physical illnesses. This extensive history of neglect, abuse and illness contributed to mental disorders that render the Defendant childlike with physical ailments that render the Defendant physically quite weak. Despite his many deficiencies, Defendant remains dedicated to the programs he is involved in and shown improvement with his mental health struggles.

There is very little, if anything, in Defendant's history to suggest that he has an inclination towards criminality. Rather, the behavior the Defendant exhibited on the date of this incident appears to be uncharacteristic and possibly the result of untreated declining mental and physical health. This factor favors the Defendant's motion.

e. Any exceptionally serious misconduct of law enforcement personnel in the investigation, arrest and prosecution of the Defendant.

This Court's understanding is that there was no serious misconduct on the part of any law enforcement personnel in the investigation, arrest and prosecution of the Defendant. Thus, this factor is not applicable here.

f. The purpose and effect of imposing upon the defendant a sentence authorized for the offense.

This Court agrees with both parties that this factor weighs in favor of dismissing the charges against the Defendant.

g. The impact of a dismissal upon the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system.

It is difficult to anticipate how the public's confidence in the criminal justice system might be affected if this indictment were to be dismissed in the interests of justice. In all likelihood, there are some members of the public who would agree with a dismissal, and it is just as likely that other members of the community would disagree and as a result, lose confidence in the criminal justice system. The Court recognizes that this type of case and whether to grant the instant Clayton motion can be polarizing. On the one hand, there are those in society who believe that criminal offenders, and in particular violent offenders, are not punished severely enough while there are others, who support the trend towards alternative to incarceration programs, particularly for those suffering from serious mental illness.

h. The impact of a dismissal on the safety or welfare of the community.

Defendant's only contacts with the criminal justice system prior to this incident, consisted of two arrests for minor infractions, neither of which resulted in a conviction. Further, Defendant has incurred no new arrests since he was released from jail on August 18, 2023. Instead, since being paroled, Defendant has met many of his treatment obligations and engaged in prosocial behaviors such as securing employment, attending therapeutic programming and connecting with peers. He continues to engage in programs that support and address his mental health issues. On this record, it does not appear that dismissal of the indictment will negatively impact the safety and welfare of the community. Accordingly, this factor favors dismissal.

i. Where the court deems it appropriate, the attitude of the complainant or victim with [*8]respect to the motion

The prosecution has been unable to communicate with the victim in this case. Thus, neither party is aware how the complainant might feel with respect to the motion, and this factor is not applicable here.

j. Any other relevant fact indicating that a judgment of conviction would serve no useful purpose.

The alleged incident occurred on July 11, 2023. K.C. was arrested and arraigned that same day. Bail was set and K.C. remained incarcerated until his Supreme Court arraignment before Judge Farber in Part 81 on August 14, 2023. On August 18, 2023, Judge Farber released K.C. on the condition that he participate in the CASES Supervised Release Program. The case was then adjourned at least six times for possible disposition and other proceedings in Part 81 before it was adjourned, on consent of the People, to the MMHC for consideration. K.C. appeared in MMHC for the first time on February 7, 2024, when a CPL 730 competency examination was ordered. K.C. was found "fit to proceed" on July 24, 2024. On that date, a clinical evaluation was ordered through EAC to determine K.C. eligibility for MHC.Other adjournments followed for an assortment of reasons, including more than four adjournments for K.C. to be connected for services with OPWDD.

On May 14, 2025, K.C. was offered the opportunity, by DANY, to plead guilty pursuant to the negotiated terms contained in a MMHC Plea Agreement. Specifically, the People offered K.C. a plea to Assault in the Second Degree, a Class D Violent Felony, with a promised sentence of three years incarceration to be followed by two years of post-release supervision, said sentence to be held in abeyance pending successful completion of the MMHC Program. If K.C. successfully completed the Program, the People would join in the Defendant's motion to dismiss the charges in the interests of justice with a permanent waiver of sealing. K.C. was eager to enter into the Agreement to formalize his participation in the MMHC. Unfortunately, mere minutes into the allocution, it became readily apparent that K.C. lacked the mental capacity to legally or factually allocute. Certainly, this Court could have plodded through the plea allocution and defense counsel could have coached K.C. through the correct responses to the Court's questions, but such an exercise would have amounted to nothing more than a charade since it was painfully obvious that K.C. did not understand the rights he was waiving or the admissions he was making. This Court had no choice but to end the exercise and instead, encouraged the People to consider offering K.C. the opportunity to plead to Assault in the Third Degree, a misdemeanor, reasoning that K.C. would likely understand the abbreviated misdemeanor plea allocution and thus, allow the Court to closely monitor K.C.'s participation and compliance with the programs that were already in place, through the MMHC, for a period of three years.

On June 11, 2025, and again on July 9, 2025, the People informed this Court that a misdemeanor offer would not be forthcoming. Defense counsel then sought leave to file the instant Clayton motion.

The People's decision not to offer a misdemeanor plea created a Hobson's choice for this Court. The Court could proceed with the felony plea allocution knowing full well that it would amount to nothing more than a formalistic charade; the case could be referred back to Part 81 where K.C. would be forced to defend against the charges and face a potential determinate prison sentence of from 2 to 7 years incarceration; or the Court could grant the Clayton motion and effectively end the proceedings against K.C.

K.C. appeared before this Court approximately 22 times during the pendency of this case. [*9]In each of those appearances, this Court had the unique opportunity to observe K.C. and to interact at length with him as is common practice in problem-solving courts. Consequently, this Court learned a great deal about K..C., the person. The Court was also able to form an opinion regarding K.C.'s physical and emotional abilities and limitations. For example, on July 24, 2024, K.C. spoke at length about his fondness for graphic novels and comic books and shared with the Court the book he was then currently enjoying. On October 16, 2024, we spoke about his new job at Five Guys. On March 19, 2025, he shared that he had started work at a church providing cleaning services and on April 16, 2025, he shared his affection for a friend's Husky named Luna, who he enjoyed playing with. When that friend left the program where they'd met, taking Luna with him, K.C. met someone else who owned an American Bully named Roxy. On other occasions, we spoke about the New York Knicks and K.C. brought his Spider Man coloring book to Court which he was proud to share with the Court.

Sadly, this Court also witnessed K.C.'s very real physical ailments such as the day his intestinal cramps were so intense that he could not sit in his chair and slid under the defense table and the day he entered the well in soiled pants, embarrassed because he'd had "an accident."

This Court can attest from first-hand knowledge that K.C.'s physical, medical, psychiatric, behavioral and cognitive challenges are real and significant. K.C. is child-like in speech and affect as evidenced in part, by his speech impairment where he adds "s" to the end of words and excludes verbs and pronouns in sentence structure. This was on display when he became frustrated while being administered an IQ test. His way of addressing the frustration was to dial 911 and stating that the testing "makes me feels [sic] the dumbs [sic]." See Defense Motion pg. 24, Defense Exhibit A, pg. 15.

This Court wishes there existed a way to keep K.C. under the Court's supervision but unfortunately, that is not an available option. The Court must choose between referring the case back to a trial part where K.C. faces the possibility of a conviction and an incarceratory sentence and granting the Clayton motion which effectively ends this Court's ability to supervise the Defendant. On the record before it and given the paucity of options, this Court cannot find that a possible incarceratory outcome would be in K.C.'s, or society's best interests. Indeed, the People concede as much. "[T]he People acknowledge [ ] the deep trauma of the defendant's upbringing, as well as his medical, intellectual and psychological hardships the People do not believe that the purpose of imposing a carceral sentence [rehabilitation, punishment and deterrence] would be met by sentencing the defendant to a term of imprisonment." People's Response, pages 11 and 12. Besides the fact that K.C. would be unable to navigate his way through the prison system, an incarceratory sentence would deprive K.C. of the opportunity to continue his participation in the myriad of programs and services he has been connected with these past two years and which have no doubt benefitted him immensely. An outcome that would not benefit him or society.

PART V: CONCLUSION

K.C.'s motion to dismiss pursuant to pursuant to CPL § 210.40 is GRANTED.

The foregoing constitutes the DECISION and ORDER of the Court.

Dated: March 2, 2026

New York, New York

Juan M. Merchan

Acting Justice of the Supreme Court

Court of Claims