People v Nural A.

Youth Part, Erie County

Decided on April 28, 2026

Docket No. FYC-70672-26/001

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 Taylor Yensan, Esq. (Assistant District Attorney), dated March 26, 2026; responsive papers dated April 6, 2026 having been filed by GIOVANNI GENOVESE, Esq. on behalf of AO Nural A.; 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 Nural A. is charged under FYC-70672-25 with one count of Criminal Mischief in the Third Degree (PL § 145.05(2)), a class E felony, and one count of Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree (PL § 120.20), a class A misdemeanor, for an incident that occurred on March 5, 2026.

On March 12, 2026, this Court arraigned AO Nural A. and released him on his own recognizance. A six-day reading was not required. A scheduling order for an extraordinary circumstances motion was granted, with the Court's decision due April 28, 2026.

Findings of Fact

It is alleged that on March 5, 2026, at approximately 8:40 a.m., AO Nural A. pointed a BB gun out the window of a grey Honda vehicle and shot at a glass encased bus shelter, causing the glass to break. There was an estimated three thousand ($3,000.00) dollars of damages to the glass bus station. A witness stated that multiple people, including children, were inside the bus shelter at the time of the shooting. The vehicle sped away after the shots were fired. Police located the vehicle and initiated a traffic stop. There were three individuals in the vehicle. They were taken to headquarters for questioning. AO Nural A. admitted to being the individual who shot the BB gun out of the vehicle.

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 Nural A.'s actions are cruel and heinous. He was riding in a vehicle during commute hours and shot a BB gun, which looked like a real gun, at a group of individuals while they were waiting for the bus. The People maintain that AO Nural A. demonstrated a heinous and cruel intent and was being a menace to society. The People do not address AO Nural A.'s amenability to or potential to benefit from the heightened services provided in Family Court.

Defense counsel argues that the actions of AO Nural A. do not rise to the level of "cruel and heinous" as the RTA statute outlines. Defense counsel asserts that this was a BB gun and not a real weapon, and that no injuries resulted from AO Nural A's actions. Defense counsel concludes by saying that this is not the "one out of a thousand" cases that should remain in the Youth Part.

This Court finds that extraordinary circumstances do not exist to retain this matter in Youth Part. This Court does not diminish the seriousness of AO Nural A.'s actions or the terror he may have caused the people waiting at the bus stop by seeing a gun pointed at them from a car window. Although critical injuries can be caused by BB guns, luckily, no one was injured, and the Defendant was not charged with a violent felony. AO Nural A. does not have a history in Youth Part. He did not commit a series of crimes; this was one incident. AO Nural A. admitted [*2]to shooting the BB gun out of the vehicle. The People have failed to prove that AO Nural A's actions are "extraordinary."

Further, the People have not met their burden of proving that AO Nural A. is not amenable to or would not benefit from the heightened services of Family Court.

This Court finds that the People have not met their burden to prevent removal of this action to Family Court. Under the totality of the circumstances, this Court finds that extraordinary circumstances do not exist to warrant this case remaining in the Youth Part.

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

SO ORDERED.

ENTER,

HON. BRENDA M. FREEDMAN