- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- People v. Vanderhorst
- Date
- June 2, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03402
Background
Defendant Jermaine Vanderhorst, an adolescent offender, was convicted upon his guilty plea of criminal possession of a firearm and sentenced to 364 days in jail. Prior to the plea, the People moved under CPL 722.23(1)(d) to prevent the removal of the case from the Youth Part of Supreme Court to Family Court, arguing that extraordinary circumstances existed to retain the case. The Supreme Court, New York County, agreed, finding extraordinary circumstances based on Vanderhorst’s lengthy criminal record and the minimal impact that prior supervision had on his behavior. Vanderhorst appealed, notwithstanding his valid waiver of the right to appeal, arguing that the extraordinary circumstances determination was an abuse of discretion and raising a jurisdictional challenge to the Youth Part’s retention of the case.
Holding
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed. On the threshold question, the Court held that the claim regarding the extraordinary circumstances finding survived the defendant’s valid appeal waiver because CPL 722.10 grants the Youth Part exclusive jurisdiction for adolescent offenders except as provided by statute, making a removal motion under CPL 722.23 a jurisdictional issue that cannot be waived. The Court expressly declined to follow contrary reasoning from other departments, specifically citing People v. Ogden, 244 AD3d 1774 (4th Dept 2025). On the merits, the Court held that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in finding extraordinary circumstances. The court properly considered both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including Vanderhorst’s extensive criminal history and the minimal effect of prior supervisory interventions, and appropriately concluded that these factors warranted retaining the case rather than removing it to Family Court.
Takeaways
The determination of whether extraordinary circumstances exist under CPL 722.23(1)(d) to prevent removal of an adolescent offender’s case to Family Court is a jurisdictional issue that survives a valid waiver of the right to appeal. This represents a departure from the approach taken by some other departments, creating an inter-departmental split that may require resolution by the Court of Appeals. On the substance, courts assessing extraordinary circumstances must weigh both aggravating and mitigating factors, including the defendant’s criminal history, the nature of the charged offense, and the effectiveness of prior supervisory interventions. A lengthy criminal record coupled with demonstrated resistance to supervision can establish the extraordinary circumstances necessary to retain the case in the Youth Part.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for practitioners handling adolescent offender cases in the First Department for two reasons. First, it establishes that challenges to extraordinary circumstances findings under CPL 722.23 are jurisdictional and non-waivable, meaning that even defendants who validly waive their appeal rights can challenge the Youth Part’s decision to retain their cases. This creates a notable split with the Fourth Department. Second, the decision provides practical guidance on what constitutes extraordinary circumstances: a defendant’s extensive criminal history and the failure of prior supervisory interventions to modify behavior are the types of factors that will support retention, even in cases where the charged offense itself may be relatively minor compared to the defendant’s prior conduct.