Epstein Secrets

SORA, despite not being a resident of New York, because of his ownership of a secondary property in Manhattan.3 See A.53 (Letter of M. Weinberg to NYS Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, dated Aug. 16, 2010). Shortly thereafter, Appellant's counsel submitted a letter to the Board outlining Appellant's

go, 12 .3d 563 (2009) 18 People u. Rampino, 55 .3d 348 (1st Dep't 2008) 30 People u. Rhodehouse, 77 3d 1032 (3d Dep't 2010) 18 Shondel v. Mark D., 7 .3d 320 (2006) 7 Statutes Correction Law § 168 27 Correction Law § 168-a(2) 28 Correction Law § 168-a(2)(a)(i) 26 Correction Law § 168-

nder SORA, despite not being a resident of New York, given his ownership of a secondary property in Manhattan.2 See A.53 (Letter of M. Weinberg to NYS Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, dated Aug. 16, 2010). Shortly thereafter, in response, Appellant's counsel submitted a letter to the Board outlinin

ther to form the reasonable belief that the right would not be asserted, and loss or prejudice would result if the right were asserted." Shondel v. Mark D., 7 N.Y.3d 320, 326 (N.Y. 2006). Indeed, courts have invoked the doctrine of estoppel against government entities when not doing so would result in

nder SORA, despite not being a resident of New York, given his ownership of a secondary property in Manhattan.3 See A.53 (Letter of M. Weinberg to NYS Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, dated Aug. 16, 2010). Shortly thereafter, Appellant's counsel submitted a letter to the Board outlining Appellant's

ther to form the reasonable belief that the right would not be asserted, and loss or prejudice would result if the right were asserted." Shondel v. Mark D., 7 3d 320, 326 M. 2006). Indeed, courts have invoked the doctrine of estoppel against government entities when not doing so would result in a "man