Difference between New York and common-law infancy rules is best described as:

• A. NY uses age-based thresholds with specific rules; common law uses three-tier presumptions
• B. NY uses no infancy rules
• C. NY uses the same infancy framework as common law
• D. NY uses a fixed age of 18 for all crimes

Answer: (A)

The concept here is how criminal responsibility for minors is determined. In common law, the infancy doctrine uses a three-tier framework based on age: very young children are categorically not responsible, a middle range has a presumption of incapacity that can be rebutted, and older youths are presumed capable of criminal liability. It’s a general, age-based ladder rather than strict numeric cutoffs tied to specific statutes.

New York, by contrast, relies on statutory age thresholds that create discrete categories with particular rules. Instead of a single three-tier presumption, New York sets explicit ages at which a person is treated as a juvenile or as an adult (and assigns the corresponding procedures and consequences). In short, New York uses codified age-based rules with concrete outcomes, while common law uses a general, age-based presumption scheme.

So the best description is that New York codifies age-based thresholds with specific rules, whereas common law relies on a three-tier presumption about capacity.