People v Kadarie R.

Youth Part, Erie County

Decided on June 1, 2026

Docket No. FYC-71143-26/001

Brenda M. Freedman, J.

The People having moved pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 722.23(1), et seq. 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 May 18, 2026; responsive papers dated May 25, 2026 having been filed on behalf of AO KADARIE R. by Brian Parker, Esq., 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 KADARIE R. is charged under FYC-71143-26/001 with one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, a class C violent felony contrary to Penal Law § 265.03(3), and one count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree, a class D felony contrary to Penal Law § 165.50.

On April 20, 2026, this Court arraigned AO KADARIE R. and remanded him, as he was currently on Intensive Supervised Probation in Family Court. A 6-day review and felony hearing was scheduled for April 24, 2026.

On April 24, 2026, Defendant and all counsel appeared. The People indicated that they [*2]would not be moving forward with a felony hearing, conceded the 6-day review and indicated that they would make a motion under CPL § 722.23(1) requesting that this matter not be removed to Family Court. A scheduling order was placed on the record for the extraordinary circumstances motion. A Decision on Motion was scheduled for June 1, 2026. AO KADARIE R. was released under CPL § 180.80.

Findings of Fact

It is alleged that on or about April 18, 2026, NYS Troopers were alerted to a stolen vehicle. Troopers located the vehicle and attempted a traffic stop. The vehicle, driven by a co-defendant of AO KADARIE R., did not stop, and the troopers began pursuit. After a twenty-minute search, the troopers located the occupants of the stolen vehicle, including AO KADARIE R. It is alleged that AO KADARIE R. was in constructive possession of a loaded Springfield XDS 9MM handgun during the incident.

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. 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).

The People argue that this matter should not be transferred to Family Court due to AO KADARIE R.'s prior consistent negative and concerning interactions with police. They attach a supporting deposition of a trooper involved in the investigation of the instant incident. The Trooper reviewed Defendant's history in Charms and determined that Defendant was involved in similar incidents on fourteen dates, spanning from May 22, 2023 to April 11, 2026, prior to the instant incident on April 18, 2026.

Defendant contends that the People merely rely on the Trooper's Supporting Deposition and police reports detailing various prior "run ins with the police" in an attempt to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances. Defendant states that none of the police reports indicate Defendant's role in the incidents, as juvenile suspects' identities are redacted. Further, the reports do not provide any findings of fact resulting in unfavorable dispositions for Defendant. Relative to the incident at hand, Defendant alleges that the weapon was recovered in a public bathroom in a fast-food restaurant, and there is no DNA evidence available to review at this time.

This Court finds that the facts of this case are not exceptional; similar accusations are made with frequency in this Court. Defendant is alleged to have been the passenger in a stolen vehicle. He was located after a police pursuit and was allegedly in constructive possession of a loaded firearm. The People do not argue that anyone was injured or that any property was damaged. The recovered firearm is not alleged to have been used in furtherance of another crime, Defendant contends it was not recovered from Defendant's body and no DNA evidence has been provided to the Court. This Court acknowledges that AO KADARIE R. had significant police contacts concerning serious allegations in the past. However, it is unknown how many resulted in arrests, and importantly, this is his first case in Youth Part.

After considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that extraordinary circumstances do not exist to prevent the transfer of this action to Family Court. The People have not met their burden to prevent removal of this action to Family Court. This constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of this Court.

SO ORDERED.

ENTER,

HON. BRENDA M. FREEDMAN