The following papers were read on this motion: People’s Affirmation and Memorandum of Law Opposing Removal 1 Adolescent Offender’s Answer to People’s Motion Opposing Removal 2 DECISION AND ORDER The Adolescent Offender (“AO”), J.B. (D.O.B. 00/00/0000), is charged with one count of Attempted Assault in the Second Degree [Penal Law §§110.00/120.05(2)]; one count of Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree [Penal Law §145.00(1)]; one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree [Penal Law §265.01(2)]; and one count of Assault in the Third Degree [Penal Law §120.00(1)]. The People have filed a motion pursuant to CPL §722.23[1][b], opposing removal of the AO’s case to the Family Court due to the existence of “extraordinary circumstances”. The AO has filed opposition papers to the People’s motion. The People have not filed any reply papers in further support thereof. The People’s Motion Opposing Removal Based on Extraordinary Circumstances ["Extraordinary Circumstances Motion"] is determined as follows: The charges filed against the AO arise from an incident alleged to have occurred on May 6, 2021 between about 8:40 PM and 9:00 PM, in V.S., Nassau County, New York. It is alleged that the AO was part of an attack against Victim “1″, who emerged from the altercation uninjured. It is further alleged that Victim 1′s parents intervened in the attack to come to their son’s aid, and that one parent sustained a superficial laceration on their back and the other parent sustained a two-inch laceration to their hand. The AO was arrested on June 15, 2021 and was arraigned that same day in the Youth Part of the Nassau County Superior Court. The People waived the statutory “sixth-day appearance” and requested to file an Extraordinary Circumstances Motion opposing removal of the AO’s case to the Family Court. The People’s Extraordinary Circumstances Motion consists of the sworn affirmation of Assistant District Attorney Andrew C. Tripodi, Esq., with accompanying Memorandum of Law and supporting exhibits appended thereto. The People argue that extraordinary circumstances exist which warrant retaining this AO’s case in the Youth Part, in that: 1) the AO was the “ringleader” and planned the subject attack in which Victim Number 1 was the target; 2) the AO acted in an especially cruel and heinous manner; and 3) no mitigating circumstances are present that could weigh against retaining the case in the Youth Part. (People’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion Opposing Removal ["Memo of Law in Support"], pp. 7, 9 and 10). In support of their contention that the AO was the “ringleader” of the subject attack, the People cite to the Felony Complaint1, the multiple supporting depositions of Victim “1” J.H.2, the supporting depositions of victims L.F. and G.W.3 and the AO’s crime report4, and argue that the AO is the sole connection between the attackers and the victims. (Memo of Law in Support, pp. 7-8). They contend that the victims know the AO because he and the Victim J. have attended school together for the past several years and the AO has been bullying J. (Memo of Law in Support, p. 8). They argue that the AO and the other attackers targeted the Victim J. as evidenced by one of the attackers yelling out “are you J.?” before attacking him [Ex. 2 to Tripodi Aff. In Support]. They further contend that the AO was the first person to get out of the car and attack the Victim J. and that the other attackers joined in the altercation once the AO and the Victim J. went down to the ground fighting. The People contend that the AO “acted in an especially cruel and heinous manner” in soliciting and directing the attack against the victims in that he was an accomplice to one of the other attackers who cut the Victim L.F.’s hand. (Memo of Law in Support, p. 9). The People assert that as a result of the attack, the Victim L.F. sustained a two-inch laceration to her hand, experienced substantial pain and received stitches at the hospital. (Memo of Law in Support, p. 9). They further contend that she has continued to experience pain as recently as June 21, 2021, her injury is still tender to the touch, and that she has a scar on her hand and will have to follow up with a hand specialist. (Memo of Law in Support, p. 9). They contend that her hand injury constitutes a “significant injury”. (Memo of Law in Support, p. 9). The People contend that no mitigating circumstances are present in this case because there is no evidence that the AO’s home life contributed to him orchestrating the subject attack. (Memo of Law in Support, p. 10). Defense counsel argues in opposition to the People’s motion that on the date of the subject incident the AO and the Victim J. ran into each other in the grocery store parking lot, that they engaged in a brief exchange and a physical scuffle ensued thereafter. (Affirmation of Sammy Sanchez, Esq., in Opposition to People’s Extraordinary Circumstances Motion, dated July of 2021 ["Sanchez Aff. In Opp."], 5). Defense counsel further argues that neither the victim J. nor the Victim W.G. saw the AO with a knife or a weapon, as evidenced by their sworn depositions. [Sanchez Aff. In Opp., 5). Defense counsel does not mention the Victim L.F.s or acknowledge the hand injury she sustained in the incident. Defense counsel argues that the AO has no prior criminal history, that he has no history of alcohol or substance abuse, and that he is an excellent student. FINDINGS OF FACT It is alleged in the Felony Complaint that on May 6, 2021 between about 8:40 PM and 9:00 PM, in V.S., Nassau County, New York, the AO exited a vehicle, approached Victim "1" J. and began striking him, causing no injuries. It is further alleged that two unknown male suspects exited the same vehicle and approached the AO and Victim Number 1. The Felony Complaint further alleges that Victims "2", W.G., and "3", L.F.s, ran to the aid of their son, Victim J., and intervened in the altercation in an attempt to protect Victim J. and to stop the altercation. It is further alleged that an unknown black male armed with a boxcutter in his hand joined the altercation to assist the AO and swung the boxcutter in a downward motion, striking Victim 2, W.G., and causing him to sustain a superficial laceration on his back, and striking Victim 3, L.F.s, on the left hand and causing her to sustain a two-inch laceration and suffer substantial pain. It is further alleged that Victim 3, L.F.s, informed law enforcement that the AO took out a knife and cut her pants in an attempt to cut her on the right upper thigh area. Based on the additional facts asserted in the People's motion, as supported by the victims' sworn statements provided to the police, on the subject date and at the subject location, the Victim J. was at the A. grocery store with his mother, Victim L.F., and stepfather, Victim W.G. (Affirmation of Andrew C. Tripodi, dated July 1, 2021 ["Tripodi Aff. In Support"],
