In In the Matter of Tristan C., 156 Misc 2d 1007, 595 N.Y.S.2d 635 (Fam Ct of New York, Kings Cty, 1993), the family court granted a motion to dismiss in the interests of justice. In that case, the respondent, a ten year old child, was charged with manslaughter in the second degree, criminally negligent homicide, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and related lesser included offenses. The respondent accidently shot and killed his best friend and cousin. The respondent moved prior to the fact-finding, to dismiss the petition in the interest of justice. The motion was granted by the family court. In that case, the facts of which are certainly tragic, the court held that its 'discretionary authority to dismiss a juvenile delinquency proceeding in furtherance of justice is rarely invoked. Such action must follow consideration of identified statutory criteria and is limited to the rare' and unusual' case where it cries out for fundamental justice beyond the confines of conventional considerations.' (Id. at 1010.) The Court termed "a tragic accident" (Ibid at p. 1008), the Court reviewed the psychological trauma and psychiatric history of the Respondent and stated that any further Family Court proceedings would, in and of themselves, interfere with whatever progress the Respondent had already made. The Court stated, at p. 1010: The Family Court's discretionary authority to dismiss a juvenile delinquency proceeding in the furtherance of justice is rarely invoked. Such action must follow consideration of identified statutory criteria, and is limited to the "rare" and "unusual" case where it "cries out for fundamental justice beyond the confines of conventional considerations." In the present case, the court concludes that such "rare" and "unusual" circumstances exist, and that the continuation of this proceeding against Tristan would work a substantial injustice. The statute requires that the court consider, to the extent applicable, any one or more of the following: the seriousness and circumstances of the crime; the extent of harm caused by the crime; any exceptionally serious misconduct of law enforcement personnel in the investigation and arrest of the respondent or in the presentment of the petition; the history, character and condition of the respondent; the need for protection of the community; or any other relevant fact indicating that a finding would serve no useful purpose. That Court further held that since the Respondent was already receiving intensive residential treatment, under a non-juvenile delinquency case, that his needs had been identified and were being met. Lastly, the court held that the Respondent never was a danger to the community nor did he have any propensity toward violent or delinquent behavior.