You are here: / / HERE THE VICTIMLESS CRIME DID NOT CONSTITUTE “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES”...
, , ,

HERE THE VICTIMLESS CRIME DID NOT CONSTITUTE “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE “RAISE THE AGE” LEGISLATION; THE PEOPLE’S MOTION TO PREVENT THE REMOVAL OF THE ADOLESCENT OFFENDER’S CASE FROM THE YOUTH PART OF SUPREME COURT TO FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Chambers, determined the People’s motion to prevent the removal of this criminal action against a 16-year-old from the Youth Part of Supreme Court to Family Court should not have been granted. The opinion focuses on the meaning of “extraordinary circumstances” in the controlling “Raise the Age” legislation which would warrant overcoming the presumption supporting removal to Family Court for adolescent offenders. The opinion is far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

In effect, the Youth Part treated a single rearrest—absent a conviction—as dispositive of the defendant’s future potential. That reasoning, if broadly applied, would undermine the core purpose of the Raise the Age legislation. The mere fact that an adolescent engaged in rehabilitative services and was later arrested, without more, does not constitute “strong proof” … that he or she is beyond the reach of the Family Court system.

Although the Youth Part concluded that “no one factor on its own may have been enough,” it found that the defendant’s prior record and prior service engagement, “coupled” with the “nature of the pending charges,” amounted to extraordinary circumstances. But none of those factors, either individually or together, rise to the level of exceptionality contemplated by the Raise the Age legislation. A second arrest for a victimless act of adolescent bravado does not convert otherwise ordinary circumstances into extraordinary ones.

Therefore, the Youth Part should have denied the People’s motion pursuant to CPL 722.23(1) to prevent removal of this action to Family Court and transferred this action to the Family Court, Richmond County. People v Lloyd F., 2025 NY Slip Op 04583, Second Dept 8-6-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth analysis of the criteria for keeping an adolescent offender’s prosecution in the Youth Part of Supreme Court as opposed to removing the case to Family Court for a juvenile-delinquency proceeding.

 

You might also like
IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS HAD DIED AT THE TIME THE ACTION AGAINST THEM WAS COMMENCED; THAT ACTION WAS A NULLITY; THEREFORE THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE THE EXECUTOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
No “Special Employee” Relationship
Flight Provided Justification for Pursuit.
PLAINTIFF SUED BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE SHERIFF FOR ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED WATER IN THE SHOWER AT THE JAIL; THE ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY WAS NOT BROUGHT UNDER A VICARIOUS LIABILITY THEORY (THE COUNTY IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF THE SHERIFF); RATHER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED THE COUNTY WAS NEGLIGENT IN ITS OWN RIGHT (SECOND DEPT).
HOSPITAL NOT LIABLE FOR ACTS OF SURGEON WHO WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE, ANALYTICAL CRITERIA OUTLINED.
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE IN THIS MURDER CASE; THE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE MUST BE DISMISSED AS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF MURDER (SECOND DEPT).
THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT A DISPUTED ISSUE IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROCEEDING; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM CONTESTING THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THIS RELATED NEGLIGENCE ACTION AND ARGUING PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; HOWEVER DEFENDANTS PRESENTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ALLOWING A VETERINARIAN’S OFFICE TO BE SUED IN NEGLIGENCE WHEN A PATRON WAS BITTEN BY A DOG IN THE WAITING ROOM DID NOT EXTEND TO A RESTAURANT OWNER WHO ALLOWS PATRONS TO BRING THEIR LEASHED DOGS TO THE RESTAURANT; THE STRICT LIABILITY “NOTICE OF VICIOUS PROPENSITIES” STANDARD APPLIED TO THE RESTAURANT OWNER (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A FOREIGN DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ACCORDED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN NEW YORK... HERE PLAINTIFF DID NOT FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE BY THE COURT-ORDERED DEADLINE BUT...