Epstein Secrets

) People v. Brensic, 70 N.Y.2d 9 (1987) People v. Conway, 47 A.D.3d 492 (1st Dept. 2008) People v. Guaman, 8 A.D.3d 545 (2d Dept. 2004) People v. Johnson, 77 A.D.3d 548 (1st Dept. 2010) 38, 49 People v. Kello, 96 N.Y.2d 740 (2001) 39 People v. Knox, 12 N.Y.3d 60 (2009) 36 People v. Mendez, 45 A.D

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

der SORA was unsupportable under the legally mandated "clear and convincing evidence" standard. See Correction Law §§ 168.1(2), 168- n(2); People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 421 (2008). B. The District Attorney's Office Appropriately Applied the Governing Legal Standard, As Set Forth by SORA and Its Gu

mes Unit. See A.89-A.90 (Tr.). At the invitation of the District Attorney's Office, counsel for Appellant followed up that meeting by providing for the People's review additional evidence from the Florida investigation to supplement the relatively limited materials provided by the Board. See A.89-A.90 (Tr.)

) People v. Brensic, 70 N.Y.2d 9 (1987) People v. Conway, 47 A.D.3d 492 (1st Dept. 2008) People v. Guaman, 8 A.D.3d 545 (2d Dept. 2004) People v. Johnson, 77 A.D.3d 548 (1st Dept. 2010) 38, 49 People v. Kello, 96 N.Y.2d 740 (2001) 39 People v. Knox, 12 N.Y.3d 60 (2009) 36 People v. Mendez, 45 A.D

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

ar and convincing evidence" standard, as the People rightfully represented at the SORA hearing. See Correction Law §§ 168-k(2), 168-n(2); People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 421 (2008). 12 EFTA00798132 A. The People Rejected the Board Recommendation As Unreliable Following Several Months of Investig

the Sex Crimes Unit rather than the more junior Assistant District Attorney originally assigned to the matter -- advised the Court that based upon the People's investigation and interaction with Florida authorities, the Board materials could not be relied upon in full and therefore did not support a Level

. Brensir, 70 N.Y.2d 9 (1987) 43 People v. Conway, 47 A.D.3d 492 (1st Dept. 2008) 36 People v. Guaman, 8 A.D.3d 545 (2d Dept 2004) 35 People v. Johnson, 77 A.D.3d 548 (1st Dept. 2010) 38, 49 People v. Kello, 96 N.Y.2d 740 (2001) 39 People v. Knox, 12 N.Y.3d 60 (2009) 36 People v. Mendez, 45 A.D

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

der SORA was unsupportable under the legally mandated "clear and convincing evidence" standard. See Correction Law §§ 168- k(2), 168-n(2); People v. Johnson, 11 3d 416, 421 (2008). B. The District Attorney's Office Appropriately Applied the Governing Legal Standard, As Set Forth by SORA and Its Guide

mes Unit. See A.89-A.90 (Tr.). At the invitation of the District Attorney's Office, counsel for Appellant followed up that meeting by providing for the People's review additional evidence from the Florida investigation to supplement the relatively limited materials provided by the Board. See A.83, A.89-A.90