New York Law Watch
Raise the Age: when a Youth Part keeps a case
Updated October 9, 2026 · 4 decisions
CPL 722.23 presumes removal of an adolescent offender’s case to Family Court unless the People show extraordinary circumstances or one of the statutory disqualifiers. The Court of Appeals in Guerrero adopted a totality-of-the-circumstances approach to extraordinary circumstances; the First Department in Key used its interest-of-justice power to order removal where the Youth Part had retained the case; the Fourth Department in Neyshaliz M. V. and Quashawn C. held the People to the statutory showing on display of a firearm and on the motion to prevent removal.
Edited by Eric McAvey.
The decisions
People v Quashawn C.
Appellate Division, Fourth Department · October 9, 2026
Law Watch record: 2026 NY Slip Op 05892
Holding The court reversed the judgment and vacated the guilty plea because the trial court abused its discretion in denying the removal of the adolescent offender’s case to Family Court. The People’s motion to prevent removal failed to meet statutory requirements for sworn facts based on personal knowledge and did not establish the requisite extraordinary circumstances.
the court failed to confirm that [defendant] understood the contents of the written waiver
2026 NY Slip Op 05892, at the official text
People v Key
Appellate Division, First Department · September 3, 2026
Law Watch record: 2026 NY Slip Op 05234
Holding The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s retention of the case in the Youth Part, exercising its interest-of-justice power to substitute its discretion despite the absence of an abuse of discretion. The court held that the totality of circumstances, particularly substantial mitigating factors, did not establish the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ required to overcome the statutory presumption of removal to Family Court under the Raise the Age legislation.
we hold that in the interest of justice, the People's motion should be denied and the case removed to Family Court
2026 NY Slip Op 05234, at the official text
People v Neyshaliz M. V.
Appellate Division, Fourth Department · July 24, 2026
Law Watch record: 2026 NY Slip Op 04581
Holding The court held that the People failed to prove that the defendant displayed a firearm ‘in furtherance of’ the charged possession offenses, as merely emphasizing control of the weapon does not satisfy the statutory requirement. Consequently, the youthful offender adjudication was reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings consistent with the decision.
defendant did not 'further' her possession of the weapon merely by displaying it to her ex-boyfriend
2026 NY Slip Op 04581, at the official text
PEOPLE v GUERRERO · 45 NY3d 659 · February 17, 2026 · Official decision · held
Statute
CPL 722.23.
Published October 9, 2026. Updated October 9, 2026.