Epstein Secrets

9 (1998) 34, 35 Fresh Del Monte Produce N.V. v. Eastbrook Caribe, 40 A.D.3d 415 (1st Dep't 2007) 43 Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) 48 Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) 32 New York State Bd. of Sex Exam'rs u. Ransom, 249 A.D.2d 891 (4th Dep't 1998) 18 People v. Arotin, 19 A.D.3

supporting reasons. See People v. Ferguson, 53 A.D.3d at 572 (reversing SORA order where defendant and court did not receive proper 10-day notice of People's revised RAI); cf. People v. Jordan, 31 A.D.3d 1196, 1196 (4th Dep't 2006) (holding People's failure to provide sufficient notice of revised RAI was

9 (1998) 34, 35 Fresh Del Monte Produce N.V. v. Eastbrook Caribe, 40 A.D.3d 415 (1st Dep't 2007) 43 Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) 48 Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) 32 New York State Bd. of Sex Exam'rs v. Ransom, 249 A.D.2d 891 (4th Dep't 1998) 18 People v. Arotin, 19 A.D.3

supporting reasons. See People v. Ferguson, 53 A.D.3d at 572 (reversing SORA order where defendant and court did not receive proper 10-day notice of People's revised RAI); cf. People v. Jordan, 31 A.D.3d 1196, 1196 (4th Dep't 2006) (holding People's failure to provide sufficient notice of revised RAI was

e process safeguards). Courts evaluating that liberty interest under the procedural due process analysis articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing the private interest affected by state action, the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest, and

nd review a written statement of the People's recommended determination and order where defendant and court did not receive proper 10-day notice of People's revised RAI); ef. People v. Jordan, 31 A.D.3d 1196, 1196 (4th Dep't 2006) (holding People's failure to provide sufficient notice of revised RAI was