New York’s ‘Raise the Age’ Law Faces New Challenge as Police Investigators Call for Reform

Republican candidate for New York Attorney General Saritha Komatireddy is joining law-enforcement officials in calling for changes to New York’s juvenile justice system, arguing that the current Raise the Age framework can move even serious felony cases involving 16- and 17-year-olds into Family Court.

A renewed debate over New York’s Raise the Age law is emerging ahead of the November election, with Republican Attorney General candidate Saritha Komatireddy highlighting concerns raised by the president of the New York State Police Investigators Association.

“This is an important perspective from the president of the New York State Police Investigators Association,” Komatireddy wrote on Facebook.

She said she has heard from parents, community members and law-enforcement officers who believe the law sends young offenders the wrong message about accountability.

“We need to fix it,” she wrote.

Her comments followed an August 15 opinion column by Kurt Labuda, president of the New York State Police Investigators Association, calling for changes to Raise the Age, particularly in serious cases involving guns, injuries and repeat violent conduct.

Labuda heads the union representing approximately 1,100 investigators and senior investigators in the New York State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation.

What Raise the Age Actually Does

New York enacted Raise the Age legislation in 2017. The second phase, applying the new system to 17-year-olds, took effect on October 1, 2019, according to the New York State Office of Children and Family Services.

Under the system, 16- and 17-year-olds charged with felonies are generally classified as Adolescent Offenders.

According to the New York State Unified Court System, those felony cases initially begin in a specialized Youth Part of Supreme or County Court.

But many cases can subsequently be transferred — or “removed” — to Family Court.

The controlling statute is New York Criminal Procedure Law §722.23.

For many qualifying cases, the statute directs the court to remove the case to Family Court unless the district attorney acts within the statutory period and establishes the legal grounds required to prevent removal.

For nonviolent felony cases, prosecutors generally have 30 days to ask the Youth Part to retain the case by demonstrating “extraordinary circumstances.”

That statutory standard has become one of the central issues in the current political debate over Raise the Age.

A 2026 Gun Case Shows How the Law Works

A recent Erie County case provides an unusually clear example.

In People v. Dequan E., 2026 NY Slip Op 51097(U), decided July 20, 2026, an adolescent offender was accused of possessing an operable Kel-Tec 9mm handgun loaded with ten rounds.

According to the court decision, police executing a search warrant discovered the loaded firearm underneath the teenager’s bed.

Prosecutors sought to prevent the case from being transferred to Family Court.

The Youth Part judge denied that request.

The court considered several circumstances, including that the firearm was not recovered from the teenager’s person, there was no allegation that the gun had been used in another crime, nobody had been injured, and the teenager was reported to have cooperated with police.

The court ultimately found that prosecutors had not established the “extraordinary circumstances” required under CPL §722.23 to prevent removal.

The case was therefore ordered transferred to Family Court.

That ruling illustrates an important feature of Raise the Age:

Possession of a loaded illegal handgun by a 16- or 17-year-old does not, by itself, guarantee that the prosecution will remain in criminal Youth Part.

But “No Consequences” Is Not Literally What the Law Says

There is an important distinction between political rhetoric and the actual statute.

Critics sometimes characterize Raise the Age as allowing teenagers to commit crimes with “no consequences.”

That is not literally what New York law provides.

A teenager can still be arrested and brought before a court.

Cases transferred to Family Court become juvenile delinquency proceedings, and Family Court retains authority to impose court supervision, placement, services and other dispositions.

The New York City Family Court explains that adolescent offenders whose cases are transferred to Family Court become juvenile delinquents and become eligible for the services and programs available in that system.

The real policy dispute is therefore more precise:

What kind of consequences should apply, and which crimes committed by 16- and 17-year-olds should remain in the criminal justice system rather than Family Court?

Labuda Wants a “Safety Valve”

Labuda’s argument focuses on cases that law-enforcement officials consider particularly serious — including offenses involving firearms, serious injuries or repeated violent conduct.

His position does not necessarily require prosecuting every 16- or 17-year-old as a conventional adult defendant.

Instead, the debate centers on whether certain serious offenses should face a stronger presumption that the case remains in Youth Part rather than being transferred into the juvenile system.

The existing law places substantial weight on rehabilitation and separating adolescents from the traditional adult criminal justice system.

Supporters view that as the purpose of Raise the Age.

Law-enforcement critics argue that the system can become too permissive when firearms and repeat violent offenders are involved.

Raise the Age Is Now Part of the Attorney General Race

Komatireddy’s intervention also moves Raise the Age directly into New York’s 2026 statewide political campaign.

The New York State Board of Elections certified Saritha Komatireddy for the Republican Attorney General primary. Her campaign identifies her as a former federal prosecutor and former Chief of Staff of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Her campaign has made public safety one of its principal themes.

That creates a clear political contrast over how New York should balance juvenile rehabilitation with accountability for serious criminal conduct.

Midtown Tribune Analysis

Two separate claims should not be confused.

The first — that Raise the Age means young offenders face “no consequences” — is too broad.

Family Court is still a judicial system, and young defendants can face substantial court intervention.

But the second concern raised by critics deserves closer scrutiny:

New York law does create pathways through which felony prosecutions involving 16- and 17-year-olds can be transferred from criminal Youth Part into Family Court.

That is not merely campaign rhetoric.

The official decision in People v. Dequan E. demonstrates how the law can operate in practice.

Police recovered an operable loaded 9mm handgun from underneath the adolescent defendant’s bed.

Prosecutors attempted to keep the prosecution in Youth Part.

The judge ruled that they had not demonstrated the extraordinary circumstances necessary under the statute and ordered the matter transferred to Family Court.

Whether that represents the juvenile justice system functioning as intended or a criminal-justice policy that has become too permissive is a legitimate political debate.

But the underlying legal mechanism is documented.

The question Albany may eventually have to answer is straightforward:

Should serious gun offenses and repeat violent conduct by adolescent offenders create a stronger presumption that the case remains in criminal Youth Part?

That question can be debated.

The existence of the current transfer mechanism cannot.

---

Ask Midtown Tribune about this story

Answers are grounded first in this article. Search all Midtown Tribune reporting from the main AI Search page.

Ask Midtown Tribune

Ask