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

ssumed by him, at least where he had, or was chargeable with, full knowledge of the facts and another will be prejudiced by his action."); see also Kilcer v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 86 A.D.3d 682, 682 (3d Dep't 2011) (observing "the litigant should be bound by the prior stance that he or she clear

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

's improper Level 3 SORA adjudication stands in stark contrast to the People's position at the SORA hearing itself and should not be permitted. See Kilcer v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 86 A.D.3d 682, 682 (3d Dep't 2011) ("A litigant should not be permitted to lead a tribunal to find a fact one way an

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

3 4 EFTA00584104 SORA adjudication stands in stark contrast to the People's position at the SORA hearing itself and should not be permitted. See Kilcer v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 86 3d 682, 682 (3d Dep't 2011) ("A litigant should not be permitted to lead a tribunal to find a fact one way and