People v Eric M.

Youth Part, Erie County

Decided on April 21, 2026

Docket No. FYC-70537-26/001

Brenda M. Freedman, J.

The People having moved pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 722.23 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 Marino, Esq. (Assistant District Attorney) on behalf of the People, dated April 1, 2026; responsive papers having been filed on April 15, 2026 by Joseph Turner, Esq. on behalf of AO ERIC M.; 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 ERIC M. was charged under FYC-70537-26/001 with one count of Grand Larceny in the First Degree (PL § 155.35(1)), one count of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree (PL § 155.30(1), one count of Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree (PL § 145.00(1), and one count of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle in the Third Degree (PL § 165.05(1) for an incident that occurred on February 22, 2026.

On March 2, 2026, this Court arraigned AO ERIC M. and released him on his own recognizance with voluntary probation services. The People indicated that they would make a motion under CPL § 722.23(1) requesting that this matter not be removed to Family Court. The Court set a scheduling order for the extraordinary circumstances motion, and it was agreed that this Court would issue a decision on motion by April 17, 2026.

Findings of Fact

It is alleged that on February 22, 2026, the Victim was in her home getting ready to go to church. Her phone was playing music via a speaker in her home, when suddenly her phone's Bluetooth connected to her vehicle, a 2022 Alfa Romeo Stelvio. Upon walking to her front door to see what was going on, the Victim observed her vehicle being backed out of her driveway by an unknown person and then driven down the street. Inside the Victim's vehicle was her purse that contained gift cards, a large sum of money, and various personal items.

The Victim notified police, who began investigating the scene and any surveillance of the area. Police were able to gather information and footage which indicated the suspected driver was a slim black male wearing a black hoodie and black pants. The Alfa Romeo Stelvio was located by police at 210 Landon Street, Buffalo. While Police were locating the stolen vehicle, they observed black males walking toward the stolen vehicle's location. Upon observing the officers, the black males turned around to leave. Police stopped the suspects, one of whom was AO ERIC M., and took him into custody.

While in police custody and in the presence of his mother, AO ERIC M. gave a written statement indicating that he took the victim's vehicle because he had an argument with his girlfriend and did not have money for a ride home.

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 term "extraordinary circumstances" is not defined in the Raise the Age Law. People v. Guerrero, 235 AD3d 1276, 1276 (4th Dept., 2025). "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). A determination regarding extraordinary circumstances is left within the broad discretion of the court. People v Guerrero, 2026 NY Slip Op 00826 [Ct App Feb. 17, 2026].

The People contend that this matter should not be transferred to Family Court. They argue that AO ERIC M. already had the benefit of the heightened services offered in Family Court and has not modified his behavior. The People state that AO ERIC M.'s actions in this case are similar to the allegations against him in his previous Youth Part cases, which were eventually removed to Family Court.

AO ERIC M. opposes the People's motion. He argues that the allegations against him are not extraordinary. No physical injury occurred, no sexual offense occurred, and no weapon was displayed. He concedes that he has one prior arrest involving a stolen vehicle, but stolen vehicle charges are common in this jurisdiction. Further, he voluntarily accepted pre-trial services.

This Court finds that extraordinary circumstances do not exist to warrant this case [*2]remaining in the Youth Part. Although frightening for the Victim, the facts of this case as they relate to AO ERIC M. are not highly unusual or especially heinous. It is not alleged that he was the leader of a group of individuals committing criminal activity. No one was injured. It is not alleged that AO ERIC M. was in possession of any weapons. In his written statement, AO ERIC M. acknowledges that he did something he was not supposed to do. He also writes that he did not intend to create a problem, he just wanted to get home.

It is true that AO ERIC M. has two prior Youth Part cases. On July 10, 2025, he was arrested on one count of Grand Larceny, Third Degree, and Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Third Degree; on July 16, 2025, he was arrested on one count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree, Unlawfully Fleeing a Police Officer, Obstructing Governmental Administration in the 2nd Degree, and multiple additional Class A misdemeanors. These matters were arraigned by this Court and removed to Family Court. However, the heightened services provided in Family Court have not been exhausted. This Court finds that the People failed to prove that AO ERIC M. is not amenable to and would not benefit from the heightened services provided in Family Court.

Having considered the totality of the circumstances, including the mitigating factors and the lack of substantially aggravating factors, this Court finds that the People have not met their burden to prevent removal of this action to Family Court. Accordingly, this case shall be removed to Family Court.

This constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of this Court.

SO ORDERED.

ENTER,

HON. BRENDA M. FREEDMAN