The following papers were read on this Motion: The People’s Notice of Motion Opposing Removal and Supporting Papers 1 The Adolescent Offender’s Affirmation in Opposition to People’s Motion Opposing Removal 2 People’s Reply Affirmation in Support of Motion Opposing Removal 3 Adolescent Offender’s Sur-Reply in Opposition to the People’s Motion 4 DECISION AND ORDER The defendant in this matter, J.R. (D.O.B. 00/00/0000) 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 February 4, 2021, 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 has filed opposition to the People’s motion and the People have filed Reply papers in further support thereof. Defense counsel thereafter submitted Sur-Reply papers, which were considered by the Court as discussed within. The People’s Motion Opposing Removal is determined as follows: The AO is charged, by way of two felony complaints, with one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree [Penal Law §265.03(3)] and one count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree [Penal Law §165.45]. The charges filed against the AO arise from an incident alleged to have occurred on January 19, 2021 at approximately 2:48 PM at a location in H., Nassau County, New York. The AO was arraigned on the Felony Complaint on January 20, 2021, in the Youth Part of the County Court, Nassau County. The Court conducted the statutory “sixth-day appearance” in this matter on January 26, 2021, at which time the People acknowledged that they could not meet their burden for the purpose of the “sixth-day appearance”. They stated that they would be opposing removal of the AO’s case by filing a motion pursuant to CPL §722.23(1) based on the existence of “extraordinary circumstances”. They thereafter filed their Motion Opposing Removal which is the subject of this Decision and Order. 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, dated February 4, 2021 ["Murphy Aff. in Support"]). Attached to ADA Murphy’s affirmation are copies of the felony complaints in this matter. (Murphy Aff. in Support, Ex. 1 thereto). ADA Murphy asserts that his supporting affirmation is based upon information and belief, the sources of said information and basis for said belief being his “conversations with witnesses, attorneys, and members of law enforcement, as well as [his] review of the files of the Office of the District Attorney pertaining to this matter and the defendant’s prior criminal history”. (Murphy Aff. in Support, 2). The People contend that there are “extraordinary circumstances” which warrant retaining this case in the Youth Part. First, the People contend that retention of this case in the Youth Part is warranted due to the seriousness of the charges filed against the AO, which include one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, a C violent felony offense. (Murphy Aff. in Support, 6[a]). Second, the People contend that retention is warranted due to the AO’s criminal history and character. (Murphy Aff. in Support, 6[b]). They contend that the AO is a self-proclaimed and unapologetic Crib gang member, and that he was last before this Court on January 7, 2020 on a prior incident of “extreme gang violence” in which he pled guilty to attempted murder for a gang-motivated shootout which occurred in broad-daylight on a commercial/industrial street in H., New York. (Murphy Aff. in Support, 6[b]). The People further contend that this Court previously showed the AO leniency when sentencing him in the prior case, by giving him the benefit of a Youthful Offender adjudication and sentencing him to one and one-third years to four years’ incarceration, after an earlier commitment of sentencing him to an indeterminate period of incarceration as a Juvenile Offender1. (Murphy Aff. in Support, 6[b]). They contend that, “[m]erely five months after” the AO was released to parole, and while still on parole, the AO “is now back before this Court on another gang-related case again involving the [AO's] possession of a loaded firearm on the streets of H.”. (Murphy Aff. in Support, 6[b]). Third, they contend that retention of this case is warranted due to “[t]he 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, 6[c]). They assert that this AO presents as a serious risk to the safety and welfare of the community and removing his case to the Family Court would constitute an undeserving and unjustifiable risk to the public’s safety and welfare. (Murphy Aff. in Support, 6[c]). The AO’s opposition to the People’s Motion Opposing Removal consists of an affirmation from his counsel. (Affirmation in Opposition to People’s Motion Opposing Removal by Luigi Vigliotti, Esq., dated February 10, 2021 ["Vigliotti Aff. in Opp."]). Defense counsel asserts that his affirmation is based upon information and belief, the basis of which being his “examination of the various papers filed herein, conversations had with the District Attorney’s Office, [counsel's] own independent investigation of this matter and upon conversations had with the AO and with the AO’s mother. (Vigliotti Aff. in Opp., 2). Defense counsel argues that that the AO’s case should be removed because the People failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence any of the three statutory factors which warrant denying the automatic removal of an AO’s case to the Family Court. (Vigliotti Aff. in Opp.,
