People v Carter B.

Youth Part, Erie County

Decided on April 29, 2026

Docket No. FYC-70756-26/001

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) on behalf of the People, dated April 13, 2026; no responsive papers having been filed by ELIAS FARAH, Esq. on behalf of AO CARTER 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 CARTER B. was charged under FYC-70756-26/001 with one count of Possessing a Sexual Performance by a Child (PL § 263.16) for an incident that occurred in Buffalo, New York.

On March 16, 2026, this Court arraigned AO CARTER B. and released him on his own recognizance with voluntary probation services. The People conceded the six-day reading and 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 29, 2026.

Findings of Fact

It is alleged that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children received a report from Google stating that two files containing apparent child pornography had been [*2]uploaded by a specific user. The New York State Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force adopted the report and confirmed that both files contained child pornography. The report provided user information, including a specific IP address, which police used to identify the name and address of the Google subscriber who uploaded the child pornography files. After further investigation and a search warrant executed at the subscriber's home, police determined it was AO CARTER B.'s Motorola cell phone device that possessed the child pornography. The videos depict sexual performances by children, pre-pubescent males and females engaged in various sexual acts, oral, anal, and vaginal intercourse.

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 CARTER B.'s actions were cruel and heinous, as he was in possession of multiple videos depicting sexual acts being committed on child victims.

This Court finds that extraordinary circumstances do not exist to warrant this case remaining in the Youth Part. Possession of child pornography is disturbing at its very core. However, the facts of this case are not highly unusual or especially heinous. See People v K.T., 86 Misc 3d 1240(A) [NY Co Ct 2025]. It is not alleged that Defendant shared or distributed the child pornography files or created the files himself, nor is he charged with engaging in unlawful sexual conduct. The People do not argue that he was the leader of a group of individuals committing criminal activity or that he committed a series of crimes over multiple days. Defendant was not in possession of a firearm. He does not have a history in Youth Part. As counsel for AO CARTER B. did not file any responsive papers, no mitigating factors were raised.

The People failed to prove that AO CARTER B. 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 [*3]removed to Family Court.

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

SO ORDERED.

ENTER,

HON. BRENDA M. FREEDMAN