The following papers were read on this Motion: The People’s Notice of Motion Opposing Removal and Supporting Papers 1 The Adolescent Offender’s Opposition to People’s Motion 2 DECISION AND ORDER The defendant in this matter, J.R. (D.O.B. 00/00/2003) is charged as an Adolescent Offender (“AO”) in the Youth Part of the County Court in Nassau County. The People have moved, by Notice of Motion dated October 1, 2019, for an Order pursuant to CPL §722.23(1) directing that this matter remain in and not be removed from the Youth Part to the Family Court in Nassau County due to the existence of “extraordinary circumstances”. (CPL §722.23[1][d]). The AO filed opposition to the People’s motion. The People’s motion is determined as follows: The AO is charged, by way of a felony complaint with two counts of Robbery in the First Degree (Penal Law §§160.15[3] and 160.15[4]), a class B Felony; three counts of Robbery in the Second Degree (Penal Law §§160.10[1]; 160.10[2(a)]; and 160.10[2(b)]), a class C Felony; one count of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree (Penal Law §§110.00/160.15[3]), a class C Felony; one count of Robbery in the Third Degree (Penal Law §160.05), a class D Felony; three counts of Attempted Robbery in the Second Degree (Penal Law §§110.00/160.10[1]; 110.00/160.10[2(a)]; and 110.00/160.10[2(b)]), a class D Felony; one count of Assault in the Second Degree (Penal Law §120.05[2]), a class D Felony; one count of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree (Penal Law §155.30[6]), a class E Felony; one count of Attempted Robbery in the Third Degree (Penal Law §§110.00/160.05), a class E Felony; one count of Attempted Assault in the Second Degree (Penal Law §§110.00/120.05[2]), a class E Felony; and one count of Assault in the Third Degree (Penal Law §120.00[1]), a class A Misdemeanor. The charges filed against the AO arise from his alleged participation in a robbery that occurred at about 6:54 PM, on or about March 25, 2019, at a location in U., N.C., New York. The AO was arraigned on the Felony Complaint on August 27, 2019, in the Youth Part of the County Court, Nassau County. At the time that he was arraigned on the charges in this matter, the AO was already in custody for a different matter pending in the Youth Part, having been indicted and charged with, inter alia, Attempted Murder in the First Degree, in connection with an incident alleged to have occurred on March 13, 2019 [Docket No. IND-xxxx-19/001]. The defendant was fifteen years old at the time of that alleged incident, and thus is charged as a Juvenile Offender ["JO"] in the preceding matter. The People’s motion to prevent removal of this matter is filed pursuant to CPL §722.23. Such governs the removal of adolescent offenders from the Youth Part to the Family Court, and provides, in pertinent part, that within thirty calendar days of an AO’s arraignment the court “shall” order the removal of the action to the family court “unless…the district attorney makes a motion to prevent removal” [CPL §722.23(1)] and the court determines “upon such motion by the district attorney that extraordinary circumstances exist that should prevent the transfer of the action to the family court”. (CPL §722.23[1(d)])1. The People’s motion consists of an affirmation from Assistant District Attorney Gregory Murphy, Esq. (Affirmation in Support of Motion Opposing Removal Pursuant to CPL §722.23 ["Murphy Aff. in Support"]). Attached to ADA Murphy’s affirmation is a copy of the felony complaint in this matter. (“Ex. A to Murphy Aff. in Support”). The People contend that in this case, the AO “actively participated with others in the violent assault and robbery of a sixteen-year-old victim”, that the AO, together with others, waited for the victim to exit a store and then, in front of numerous witnesses, began physically striking the victim and stealing his property. (Murphy Aff. in Support, 3). The People further contend that the victim was eventually able to escape with the assistance of his mother, who was threatened and injured in the process. (Murphy Aff. in Support, 3). It is further contended that the assault and robbery in this case was, “at least in-part”, motivated by gang-related disputes stemming from prior gang member homicides. (Murphy Aff. in Support, 3). Specifically, it is alleged that on March 13, 2019, the AO’s friend had been shot to death in H., New York, and that the victim in this case was targeted due to his having insulted the memory of the decedent. (Murphy Aff. in Support, 3). The People argue that extraordinary circumstances exist based on two grounds. They argue that the first basis for finding extraordinary circumstances is the AO’s “criminal history and character”, including his other pending matter in the Youth Part which arises from his alleged involvement in a gang-motivated shootout captured on surveillance video. (Murphy Aff. in Support, 4[a]). They argue that the second basis for finding “extraordinary circumstances” is “the impact of removal on the safety and welfare of the community as well as public confidence in the criminal justice system”. (Murphy Aff. in Support, 4[b]). The People argue that, while the victim in this case was able to escape without suffering serious injury, the AO’s actions in both cases have put individuals at risk of serious injury and/or death, that his gang affiliation and brazen violent criminal conduct present a serious risk to the safety and welfare of the people of the Village of H., and that removal of this case will undermine confidence in the criminal justice system as it will be perceived as one more instance of a violent gang member escaping just punishment due to his age. (Murphy Aff. in Support, 4[b]). The AO’s opposition to the People’s motion consists of an affirmation from his counsel. (Affirmation of Dana Grossblatt, Esq. ["Grossblatt Aff. in Opposition"]). Defense counsel first argues that while the police and the ADA have viewed video surveillance depicting the incident in this matter, and have had “the luxury” of reviewing other discovery, including speaking with civilian and police witnesses and reviewing paperwork created by the police, as well as the witnesses’ supporting depositions, the defense has not been given an opportunity to review the same. (Grossblatt Aff. in Opposition, 2). The AO’s counsel requests an order directing the People to turn over such discovery material, in light of the forthcoming discovery rules that will require a “presumption of openness”. (Grossblatt Aff. in Opposition, 3). The defense argues that the People have failed to establish the existence of “extraordinary circumstances” which would preclude this matter from being removed to the family court. Counsel argues that “extraordinary circumstances” has been held to mean “exceptional to a very marked extent, most unusual and far from common” and that, in this case, the People have provided minimal information about the AO’s involvement in the alleged robbery and assault. (Grossblatt Aff. in Opposition,
