People v Dequan E.

Youth Part, Erie County

Decided on July 20, 2026

Docket No. FYC-71742-26/001

Brenda M. Freedman, J.

The People having moved pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law, Article 722, § 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 L. Yensan, Esq. (Assistant District Attorney), dated June 30, 2026; responsive papers not having been received on behalf of AO DEQUAN E.; 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 DEQUAN E. was charged under FYC-71742-26/001 with one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, a class C felony in violation of Penal Law § 265.03(3), and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree, a class D felony in violation of Penal Law § 265.02(1). On June 4, 2026, this Court arraigned Defendant and set bail in the amount of $30,000 cash, $30,000 insurance company bail bond, 10% of $80,000 partially secured surety bond. On June 5, 2026, the Court calendared this matter at the People's request due to the filing of incorrect charges. Defendant was hospitalized, and the parties waived his appearance. The People advised that they would modify the pending charges and consented to the Court releasing Defendant on his own recognizance. On June 10, 2026, Defendant was arraigned on a Felony Complaint charging one count of Criminal Possession of a Firearm, a class E felony in violation of Penal Law § 265.01-B(1), and the two Criminal Possession of a Weapon charges were dismissed on the People's motion. The People conceded the six-day review and agreed that this matter should proceed under CPL § 722.23(1). The Court set an [*2]extraordinary circumstances motion schedule and scheduled the decision to be rendered on July 20, 2026, with the parties waiving time as necessary.

Findings of Fact

It is alleged that on June 4, 2026, law enforcement executed a search warrant at a residential home where Defendant resides. As police were approaching the home, Defendant was leaving. Law enforcement apprehended him, and he made an admission to a detective about a firearm located under his bed. Upon further investigation, law enforcement recovered one Kel-Tec 9mm handgun loaded with 10 live rounds from underneath Defendant's bed. The CPS lab test fired the firearm, and it was found to be operable.

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. Id. "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 Defendant's behavior was highly unusual and especially cruel and heinous and created a serious safety concern to society. He knew he should not be in possession of the firearm and admitted to police that he had a handgun under his bed.

Defendant did not provide mitigating circumstances for this Court to consider.

This Court finds that the facts of this case are not highly unusual or especially heinous. One firearm was recovered from under Defendant's bed. It was not on his person. The People do not allege that the firearm was used in furtherance of another crime, and no one was injured. Defendant is not alleged to be the ringleader of a group of individuals committing crimes. This is a single incident, not a series of crimes. It appears Defendant was cooperative with law enforcement.

The People have not proven that Defendant is not amenable or would not benefit in any way from the heightened services in the Family Court. Although Defendant had one prior case removed to Family Court in April, 2025, he received an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal and has not exhausted Family Court services.

After examining all the circumstances of this case and this youth, this Court finds that extraordinary circumstances do not exist to prevent the transfer of this action to Family Court. The People did not meet their burden to prevent removal of this action to Family Court. This [*3]constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of this Court.

SO ORDERED.

DATED:

ENTER,

HON. BRENDA M. FREEDMAN