Epstein Secrets

ed that defendant register in Florida as a sex- offender, the fact that he also maintained a residence in Manhattan meant that he had to register in New York State as a sex offender as well. Following an investigation, the State of New York Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders ("The Board') recommended that, on

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

A is per se not reliable where it is actually proven false, and directly contradicted by non-hearsay evidence. See, e.g., 5 N.Y. Prac., Evidence in New York State and Federal Courts § 8:98 (stating that hearsay "is not immune from impeachment" and that hearsay evidence "may be attacked in any of the usual way

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.)

ed that defendant register in Florida as a sex- offender, the fact that he also maintained a residence in Manhattan meant that he had to register in New York State as a sex offender as well. Following an investigation, the State of New York Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders ("The Board') recommended that, on

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

ed that defendant register in Florida as a sex- offender, the fact that he also maintained a residence in Manhattan meant that he had to register in New York State as a sex offender as well. Following an investigation, the State of New York Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders ("The Board') recommended that, on

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

e SORA is per se not reliable where it is actually proven false, and directly contradicted by non-hearsay evidence. See, e.g., 5 Prac., Evidence in New York State and Federal Courts § 8:98 (stating that hearsay "is not immune from impeachment" and that hearsay evidence "may be attacked in any of the usual way

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