Summary
In People v. T.P., 73 Misc. 3d 1215(A), 2021 WL 5227446 (N.Y. Co. Ct. 2021), the Court referenced the common dictionary and reviewed the legislative history of the Raise the Age legislation and interpreted "extraordinary circumstances" to mean that "the People's Motion Opposing Removal must be denied unless they establish the existence of an ‘exceptional’ set of facts which ‘go beyond’ that which is ‘usual, regular or customary’ and which warrant retaining the case in the Youth Part instead of removing it to the Family Court."
Summary of this case from People v. D.J.Opinion
Youth Part Ind. FYC-00000-00
09-20-2021
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. T.P., Adolescent Offender.
Honorable Joyce Smith, Acting Nassau County District Attorney, by David R. Santana, Esq. Mary E. Murray, Esq., Attorney for the Adolescent Offender, T.P.
Honorable Joyce Smith, Acting Nassau County District Attorney, by David R. Santana, Esq.
Mary E. Murray, Esq., Attorney for the Adolescent Offender, T.P.
Conrad D. Singer, J.
The following papers were read on this Motion:
The People's Notice of Motion Opposing Removal Pursuant to CPL § 722.23 1
The Adolescent Offender's Affirmation in Opposition to People's Motion to Prevent Removal to Family Court 2
The defendant in this matter, T.P. (D.O.B. X/XX/XXXX) is charged as an Adolescent Offender ("AO") in the Youth Part of the County Court in Nassau County. The People have moved for an Order pursuant to CPL § 722.23(1) directing that this matter remain in the Youth Part and not be removed to the Family Court in Nassau County due to the existence of "extraordinary circumstances". ( CPL § 722.23[1] ). The AO has filed opposition to the People's motion.
The People's Motion Opposing Removal is determined as follows:
The AO is charged by way of separate felony complaints with one count of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree [ Penal Law § 155.35(1) ] and one count of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree [ Penal Law § 155.40(1) ]. The charges filed against the AO arise from incidents that are alleged to have occurred on July 24, 2021 at approximately 7:00 PM in K.P., G.N., Nassau County, New York, and at approximately 12:01AM in G.N., Nassau County, New York. The AO was arraigned in the Youth Part on July 26, 2021, at which time the People waived a statutory sixth-day appearance for review of the accusatory instrument and requested to file a motion opposing removal pursuant to CPL § 722.23(1). The People thereafter filed the motion that is the subject of this Decision and Order.
The People's Motion Opposing Removal consists of the Supporting Affirmation of ADA David Santana, Esq. ["ADA Santana Aff. In Support"], with exhibits attached thereto. The People argue that extraordinary circumstances exist which warrant retaining the AO's case in the Youth Part, to wit: 1) the AO's criminal history and character; 2) the indicia of premeditation and planning in the commission of this offense; 3) the impact of a removal to the family court upon the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system; and 4) judicial economy.
The AO's counsel has submitted an Affirmation in Opposition, in which counsel argues that there is no statutory authority that would permit retaining the AO's case in the Youth Part, because the People have failed to allege facts of a significant physical injury and have failed to establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances. (Affirmation in Opposition by Mary E. Murray , Esq. , dated Aug. 30, 2021 ["Murray Aff. In Opp."], ¶¶ 3 to 7).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The People's Motion Opposing Removal includes a supporting affirmation by ADA David R. Santana, Esq., in which counsel affirms that the AO, together with two adult co-defendants, is alleged to have stolen two vehicles over the course of two days starting July 24, 2021, in K.P., Nassau County, New York. (Affirmation in Support of Motion Opposing Removal Pursuant to CPL § 722.23 by David R. Santana, Esq. , dated August 9, 2021 ["Santana Aff. In Support of Motion"], ¶¶ 3 and 4). It is alleged that on or about and in between July 23, 2021 and July 24, 2021, the AO and his co-defendants stole a black 2018 BMW 330i from the driveway of its owner, and that on July 24, 2021, the vehicle's owner called the police and filed a stolen car report. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , ¶ 7). It is alleged that the AO and his co-defendants drove the vehicle back to N., New Jersey, where they all reside. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , ¶ 8). License plate reader cameras in Essex County allegedly spotted the stolen vehicle and it was determined that the license plate had been changed to a temporary New Jersey license plate. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , ¶¶ 8 and 9).
ADA Santana further alleges that the AO and his two codefendants took the stolen BMW to their "fence" in order to have the "fence" sell the vehicle out of state and overseas, but the "fence" did not want the vehicle and told them to take the vehicle back. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , ¶ 11). On July 25, 2021, they allegedly drove the stolen BMW from N., New Jersey back to K.P., New York. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , ¶ 12). It is further alleged that when the vehicle entered K.P., BMW sent an alert to the owner informing him that the vehicle was back in the K.P. area, and the victim called Sergeant U., a Sergeant in the K.P. Police department, and told the Sergeant that the vehicle had re-entered K.P. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , ¶¶ 13 to 14). The vehicle was tracked to "89 S.P." in G.N., Sergeant U. dispatched patrol units to the area, and the vehicle was found by K.P. police officers. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , ¶¶ 16 to 18). Officers activated their lights and sirens and attempted to investigate the occupants of the vehicle, but the BMW, with the AO and co-defendants inside, then drove away. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , ¶ 20).
The officers drove in separate police vehicles to pursue the BMW with the AO and his co-defendants inside. The AO's co-defendant Z.W. drove the BMW, the AO was the front seat passenger, and the AO's other co-defendant, J.B., was sitting in the back of the BMW. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , ¶ 21). Co-defendant W. crashed into one of the police vehicles, causing an officer to sustain physical injury to his neck and his back. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , ¶ 25). The AO exited the vehicle after the crash and ran away from the scene. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , ¶ 26). The AO's codefendants continued to drive away from the police, until they crashed the BMW into a tree at an intersection in G.N. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , ¶¶ 28 to 32). Officers approached the BMW and saw that the codefendants were gone. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , ¶ 33). A short time later, K. Police Officers spotted the codefendants walking down the road a short distance from the scene of the crash. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , ¶ 34). The codefendants gave officers inconsistent statements about where they were going and coming from, and they were arrested. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , ¶ 36). Through an ongoing canvas of the surrounding neighborhoods, the AO was located and detained by law enforcement. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , ¶ 37). The People's Motion Opposing Removal also mentions that the AO provided police with a detailed written statement in which he admitted that he had also stolen a 2019 Cadillac from K.P. earlier in the same day that he allegedly stole the BMW, but that the Cadillac had been towed in N. before the AO was able to sell it. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , ¶ 40[iii]).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CPL § 722.23(1) requires the Court to deny the People's Motion Opposing Removal unless they establish the existence of "extraordinary circumstances" which warrant keeping this case in the Youth Part. ( CPL § 722.23[1][d] ). The term "extraordinary circumstances" is not defined under CPL § 722.23. "In answering any ‘question of statutory interpretation, [the court's] primary consideration is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature". ( People v. Thomas , 33 NY3d 1, *5 [2019] ; see also People v. Roberts , 31 NY3d 406, 418 [2018] ). After referring to the common dictionary definition of the term "extraordinary", and having reviewed the legislative history of the RTA legislation as a further statutory interpretation aid , the Court interprets "extraordinary circumstances" to mean that the People's Motion Opposing Removal must be denied unless they establish the existence of an "exceptional" set of facts which "go beyond" that which is "usual, regular or customary" and which warrant retaining the case in the Youth Part instead of removing it to the Family Court.
See People v. Andujar , 30 NY3d 160, 163 [2017] ["[I]n determining the meaning of statutory language, we ‘have regarded dictionary definitions as useful guideposts’ "].
People v. Roberts , 31 NY3d at 423 ; see also People v. Andujar , 30 NY3d at 166 ["While ‘the words of the statute are the best evidence of the Legislature's intent,’ legislative history may also be relevant as an aid to construction of the meaning of words’ "]).
Merriam-Webster defines "extraordinary" as "going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary", and "exceptional to a very marked extent". (see Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, display [ at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extraordinary]). Black's Law Dictionary defines the term "extraordinary circumstances" as "[a] highly unusual set of facts that are not commonly associated with a particular thing or event". (10th ed. 2014).
New York State Assembly members debating the Raise the Age bill contemplated that the People would satisfy the "extraordinary circumstances" standard where "highly unusual and heinous facts are proven and there is a strong proof that the young person is not amenable or would not benefit in any way from the heightened services in the family court". (Assembly, Record of Proceedings , April 8, 2017 ["Assembly Record"], p. 39). The legislators specifically declined to provide definitive examples of instances where a case would rise to the level of "extraordinary circumstances". (Assembly Record , p. 39). They advised that in assessing whether the People have proven "extraordinary circumstances", the Judge should consider all the circumstances of that youth, including both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. (Assembly Record , pp. 39 to 40).
The People cite extensively to the AO's history and past contacts with the New Jersey Family Court as evidence of the existence of "extraordinary circumstances"; however, they concede that FCA § 381.2(1) prohibits such history from being admitted in this Court as evidence against the AO or his interests. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , p. 6 ¶¶ "i" and "ii"; see also FCA § 381.2[1] and People v. M.R. , 68 Misc 3d 1004, 1010 [Sup. Ct. Kings County 2020] ). The Court finds that the evidence of the AO and his co-defendants’ "premeditation and planning in the commission of this offense", cited by the People, is an aggravating factor that weighs in favor of retaining this case in the Youth Part. (Santana Aff. In Support of Motion , pp. 7 and 8 ¶¶ "i" through "v").
The AO's attorney, however, has also cited to mitigating factors concerning this AO, including that he resides with a foster mother due to his mother's alleged ongoing substance abuse issues, and that he currently has no contact with his biological father. (Murray Aff. in Opp. , ¶ 11). Additionally, the Court notes that the charges pending in this Court against the AO are non-violent, and the AO's counsel correctly contends that the People have not alleged that this AO is responsible for causing anyone to sustain a physical injury. Overall, the Court is not persuaded by the People's argument that removing this AO's case would "cut against the legislative intent" of the Raise the Age legislation, after considering that the legislators emphasized that the People would face a "very high bar" when opposing the removal of an AO's case to the family court [Assembly Record , p 83], and further considering the Assembly Members’ stated intention that only "one in 1,000 cases would be kept by the criminal [court] and the others would" be removed to the family court. (Assembly Record , p. 102).
Under the totality of the circumstances, and after balancing the aggravating factors and mitigating factors in this case [see , People v. B.H. , 63 Misc 3d 244, 250 [Sup. Ct. Nassau County 2019] ), the Court finds that the People have failed to establish the existence of "extraordinary circumstances" warranting the retention of the AO's case in the Youth Part.
Accordingly, the People's Motion Opposing Removal to the Family Court is denied and this AO's case shall be removed to the Family Court forthwith.
This constitutes the opinion, decision and order of this Court.