People v. T.P., Youth Part Ind. FYC-00000-00

CourtNew York County Court
Writing for the CourtConrad D. Singer, J.
Citation73 Misc.3d 1215 (A),154 N.Y.S.3d 747 (Table)
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. T.P., Adolescent Offender.
Docket NumberYouth Part Ind. FYC-00000-00
Decision Date20 September 2021

73 Misc.3d 1215 (A)
154 N.Y.S.3d 747 (Table)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York,
v.
T.P., Adolescent Offender.

Youth Part Ind. FYC-00000-00

County Court, New York, Nassau County.

Decided on September 20, 2021


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...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT