Epstein Secrets

r a state registration and notification scheme like SORA have a protected liberty interest that entitles them to procedural due process. See Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); see also People v. David W., 95 N.Y.2d 130, 138 (2000) (holding that the imposition of a Level 3 SORA det

ppropriate where the apparent impartiality of the lower court has been legitimately questioned, as it most certainly has here. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008) (remanding resentencing matter to a different Justice where the "appearance of fairness and impartiality [was]

y of N.Y., 61 A.D.2d 187 (2d Dep't 1978) 7 Chautauqua Cnty. Fed'n of Sportsmens Club, Inc. v. Caflisch, 15 A.D.2d 260 (4th Dep't 1962) 5 Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 24 Fresh Del Monte Produce N.V. v. Eastbrook Caribe, 40 3d 415 (1st Dep't 2007) 30 Karasik u. Bird, 104 2

of the matter to a different Justice should this Court deem remand necessary to recalculate Appellant's risk assessment level. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008); Fresh Del Monte Produce N.V. u. Eastbrook Caribe, 40 A.D.3d 415, 421 (1st Dep't 2007). 30 EFTA00792603 CON

F SORA AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS AND MUST BE VACATED. 45 CONCLUSION 49 EFTA00181027 , EFTA00181028 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 32, 33, 35, 36 E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1109 (1998) 34, 35 Fr

ppropriate where the apparent impartiality of the lower court has been legitimately questioned, as it most certainly has here. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008) (remanding resentencing matter to a different Justice where the "appearance of fairness and impartiality [was]

THE MANDATES OF SORA AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS AND MUST BE VACATED. 45 CONCLUSION 49 ll EFTA00232663 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 32, 33, 35, 36 E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1109 (1998) 34, 35 Fr

ppropriate where the apparent impartiality of the lower court has been legitimately questioned, as it most certainly has here. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008) (remanding resentencing matter to a different Justice where the "appearance of fairness and impartiality [was]