People v. S.B.People v. S.B.
Giovanni Genovese, Esq. (for Principal S.B.)
Brenda M. Freedman, J.
The People having moved pursuant to
Procedural History
AO S.B. is charged under FYC-72984-25/001 with Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree, a class D felony contrary to
On August 19, 2025, Accessible Magistrate John Wanat arraigned AO S.B. and remanded him. Later that day, this Court arraigned AO S.B. and released him on his own recognizance with Voluntary Case Planning Services. A six-day reading was not required under
A scheduling order was placed on the record. The People‘s Motion would be due
Findings of Fact
It is alleged that a vehicle was stolen on or about August 17, 2025 at 11:30p.m. The next day, a Cheektowaga Police Officer was on routine patrol when he received a notification about the location of the stolen vehicle. The Officer located the vehicle and activated his overhead emergency lights and siren. The stolen vehicle failed to yield. The Officer and another marked patrol vehicle pursued the stolen vehicle for approximately 20 minutes. The chase ended when the stolen vehicle struck a tree and became disabled. AO S.B. was taken into custody, as he was driving the stolen vehicle. Five co-defendants were in the stolen vehicle with AO S.B. At no time did the owner of the stolen vehicle give anyone else permission to operate, ride in, or otherwise exercise control over 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” (
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 because the facts are extraordinary and AO S.B. has a history in Youth Part. Defendant raises such mitigating factors as the lack of injuries because of the accident, as well as AO S.B.‘s lack of family stability and positive influences in his life. Counsel cites AO S.B.‘s father being in jail and his mother losing custody of him over an abuse and neglect Court matter as major contributing and mitigating factors.
Accounting for all the circumstances of this case and this young person, this Court finds that extraordinary circumstances exist to prevent removal of this matter to Family Court. AO S.B. has a history in Youth Part. In February 2025, this Court removed three matters pending
After examining all the circumstances of this case and this youth, this Court finds that extraordinary circumstances exist to prevent the transfer of this action to Family Court. The People 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