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

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

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

'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

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

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