In the Matter of Kareem E., Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Juvenile delinquency proceeding under Family Ct Act article 3 [juvenile delinquency proceedings], involving whether the petition was facially sufficient as to second-degree riot and whether the evidence supported attempted assault in the third degree and resisting arrest.
Family Court granted the petition, found that respondent committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute riot in the second degree, attempted assault in the third degree and resisting arrest, and adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent with a one-year probation term.
The Appellate Division dismissed only the second-degree riot count and otherwise affirmed the adjudication.
The riot charge was jurisdictionally defective because the petition and supporting deposition did not contain nonhearsay facts showing that respondent and four or more others simultaneously engaged in tumultuous and violent conduct as required by Penal Law § 240.05 [second-degree riot: simultaneously with four or more other persons engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly causes or creates a grave risk of causing public alarm]. The court otherwise found the attempted assault and resisting arrest findings supported by the weight of the evidence.
Background
In February 2024, petitioner commenced a juvenile delinquency proceeding against respondent, born in 2009, based on a parking-lot fight involving several people. Police alleged that respondent fought with another individual, ignored commands to stop, and had to be restrained by two officers. The petition charged conduct that, if committed by an adult, would constitute riot in the second degree under Penal Law § 240.05 [second-degree riot: simultaneously with four or more other persons engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly causes or creates a grave risk of causing public alarm], attempted assault in the third degree under Penal Law §§ 110.00 [attempt statute] and 120.00 (1) [third-degree assault: intent to cause physical injury to another person], and resisting arrest under Penal Law § 205.30 [intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer or peace officer from effecting an authorized arrest].
Lower Court Decision
After a fact-finding hearing, Family Court found that respondent committed second-degree riot, attempted assault in the third degree, and resisting arrest, while dismissing an obstructing governmental administration charge. After disposition, the court adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for one year.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the order by dismissing count 1, second-degree riot. It held that the petition's allegation that respondent fought with another juvenile 'with more than four people present' and the supporting deposition's statement that respondent was 'accompanied by' eight other individuals did not establish that respondent and at least four others simultaneously engaged in the kind of tumultuous and violent conduct required for riot. The court therefore found a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect and dismissed that count under Family Ct Act § 315.1 [dismissal of defective petition/count]. The court otherwise affirmed, holding that the evidence, including officer testimony and body-camera footage, supported the findings for attempted assault in the third degree and resisting arrest. A partial dissent would have dismissed the entire petition, concluding that justification was raised as to the assault count and that the resisting arrest count should be dismissed in furtherance of justice under Family Ct Act § 315.2 [dismissal in furtherance of justice].
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that a juvenile delinquency petition must be facially sufficient with nonhearsay allegations establishing every element of each charged offense, and failure to do so is a jurisdictional defect reviewable for the first time on appeal. It also shows that, on weight-of-the-evidence review, repeated punches to the face, head or neck can support attempted third-degree assault even where the victim is unidentified and no actual injury is proven, so long as the conduct came dangerously close to causing physical injury. The case further confirms that an authorized arrest supported by probable cause can sustain a resisting arrest finding when body-camera footage and testimony show the respondent pulling away and struggling with officers.
A juvenile delinquency count for riot cannot stand on allegations that only show a fight with several bystanders present; the petition must specifically allege group tumultuous violence by respondent and at least four others. Here, only the riot count failed, while the assault-attempt and resisting-arrest findings survived appellate review.