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

ase and thus posed a significant risk to the community. The court acted correctly, and certainly well within its discretion, when it concluded that the People's stated concerns did not cast any meaningful doubt on the propriety of the Board's recommendation. D. Nor is defendant persuasive when he contends

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

ase and thus posed a significant risk to the community. The court acted correctly, and certainly well within its discretion, when it concluded that the People's stated concerns did not cast any meaningful doubt on the propriety of the Board's recommendation. D. Nor is defendant persuasive when he contends

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

ase and thus posed a significant risk to the community. The court acted correctly, and certainly well within its discretion, when it concluded that the People's stated concerns did not cast any meaningful doubt on the propriety of the Board's recommendation. D. Nor is defendant persuasive when he contends