In the Matter of Kareem E., Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Juvenile delinquency procedure under Family Ct Act article 3 [juvenile delinquency proceedings], including whether the petition was facially sufficient as to second-degree riot and whether the fact-finding proof supported attempted assault in the third degree and resisting arrest.
Family Court granted the petition, found that Kareem E. committed acts that would constitute riot in the second degree, attempted assault in the third degree and resisting arrest if committed by an adult, adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for one year.
The Appellate Division reversed only the portion of the order sustaining the second-degree riot charge and dismissed count 1 of the petition; it otherwise affirmed the adjudication based on attempted assault in the third degree and resisting arrest.
The riot count was jurisdictionally defective because the petition and supporting deposition did not contain nonhearsay facts showing that respondent, together with four or more other persons, simultaneously engaged in tumultuous and violent conduct creating public alarm as required by Penal Law § 240.05 [second-degree riot requires simultaneous tumultuous and violent conduct by a person and four or more others, causing or creating a grave risk of public alarm]. The court nevertheless held that the evidence, including officer testimony and body camera footage, supported the findings on attempted assault and resisting arrest.
Background
The proceeding arose from a February 2024 parking lot and street fight involving respondent, then a teenager born in 2009. Police arrived and observed a large group fighting. Officers testified that respondent, who appeared larger than the other participant, was punching that individual in the face, head or neck area. When police tried to arrest respondent, he refused commands to place his hands behind his back and pulled away, requiring two officers to take him to the ground.
Lower Court Decision
After a fact-finding hearing, Family Court found that respondent committed acts constituting riot in the second degree under Penal Law § 240.05 [second-degree riot requires simultaneous tumultuous and violent conduct by a person and four or more others, causing or creating a grave risk of public alarm], attempted assault in the third degree under Penal Law § 110.00 and § 120.00 (1) [attempt liability and intentional assault causing physical injury], and resisting arrest under Penal Law § 205.30 [intentionally preventing or attempting to prevent an authorized arrest]. The court dismissed the obstructing governmental administration charge, then adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent and imposed one year of probation.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the riot allegation had to be dismissed under Family Ct Act § 315.1 [dismissal of a facially insufficient juvenile delinquency petition] because the pleading alleged only that respondent fought with another juvenile while more than four people were present, and the supporting deposition stated merely that several individuals were fighting and respondent was accompanied by eight others. Those allegations did not establish that respondent and at least four others were simultaneously engaged in the kind of tumultuous and violent mob conduct required for second-degree riot. The court otherwise affirmed, concluding that the challenge to legal sufficiency on attempted assault was unpreserved, but that the findings on attempted assault and resisting arrest were not against the weight of the evidence. A partial dissent would have dismissed the entire petition, finding justification was raised as to the assault charge and favoring dismissal of the resisting arrest charge in furtherance of justice under Family Ct Act § 315.2 [dismissal in furtherance of justice].
Legal Significance
The decision underscores that in juvenile delinquency matters, facial sufficiency is jurisdictional and nonwaivable: the petition and supporting depositions must contain nonhearsay facts establishing every element of the charged offense. Mere allegations that more than four people were present at a fight are insufficient to plead riot in the second degree. The case also confirms that body camera footage and officer testimony can support findings of attempted assault and resisting arrest even where the victim is unidentified and no completed injury is proven, so long as the evidence shows conduct coming dangerously close to causing physical injury and resistance to an authorized arrest.
A juvenile delinquency petition charging riot must specifically allege coordinated violent conduct by the respondent and at least four others, not just a fight in a crowd. Here, that pleading failure required dismissal of the riot count, but the remaining adjudication stood because the record supported attempted assault and resisting arrest.