Epstein Secrets

f law were sufficient where thay were "clear, supported by the record, and sufficiently detailed to permit intelligent appellate review"); People v. Belzer, 84 A.D.3d 905, 906 (2d Dept. 2011)(`While a SORA determination should be supported by findings of fact, there is no need for a court to make gratu

ere was none. For those reasons, the Board recommended that defendant be designated a level-three sex offender. At the SORA hearing before Justice Pickholz, defendant essentially took the position that the level-three designation could not be supported by the crimes with which he had actually been char

Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT INTRODUCTION Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on January 18, 2011, adjudicating him a level-three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA"). By the under

f law were sufficient where thay were "clear, supported by the record, and sufficiently detailed to permit intelligent appellate review"); People v. Belzer, 84 A.D.3d 905, 906 (2d Dept. 2011)(`While a SORA determination should be supported by findings of fact, there is no need for a court to make gratu

ere was none. For those reasons, the Board recommended that defendant be designated a level-three sex offender. At the SORA hearing before Justice Pickholz, defendant essentially took the position that the level-three designation could not be supported by the crimes with which he had actually been char

Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT INTRODUCTION Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on January 18, 2011, adjudicating him a level-three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA"). By the under

f law were sufficient where thay were "clear, supported by the record, and sufficiently detailed to permit intelligent appellate review"); people v. Belzer, 84 A.D.3d 905, 906 (2d Dept. 2011)(While a SORA determination should be supported by findings of fact, there is no need for a court to make gratui

Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT INTRODUCTION Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on January 18, 2011, adjudicating him a level-three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA"). By the under

ere was none. For those reasons, the Board recommended that defendant be designated a level-three sex offender. At the SORA hearing before Justice Pickholz, defendant essentially took the position that the level-three designation could not be supported by the crimes with which he had actually been char