Epstein Secrets

pellant did not have a meaningful opportunity to present evidence on his own behalf because 1 As set forth in greater detail in Section II, infra, the District Attorney's Office was presented with, and had already considered, much of this countervailing evidence as part of its pre-hearing investigation and discussion

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-

osition of the Assistant District Attorney charged with representing the State and instead, 1 As set forth in greater detail in Section II, infra, the District Attorney's Office was already presented with, and had already considered, much of this countervailing evidence as part of its pre-hearing investigation and di

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

hts to which he is entitled and which deprivation of those rights their actions occasioned. 2 As set forth in greater detail in Section II, infra, the District Attorney's Office was already presented with, and had already considered, much of this countervailing evidence as part of its pre-hearing investigation and di

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