Epstein Secrets

" and that hearsay evidence "may be attacked in any of the usual ways"). The People acknowledge as much in their citation and repeated reference to People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 577 (2009) (noting the unreliability of a victim's statement where it is "equivocal, inconsistent with other evidence, or seems dub

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-

y proven false, and directly contradicted by non-hearsay evidence. CITE. The People acknowledge as much in their citation and repeated reference to People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 577 (2009) (noting the unreliability of a victim statement where it is "equivocal, inconsistent with other evidence, or seems dubio

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

" and that hearsay evidence "may be attacked in any of the usual ways"). The People acknowledge as much in their citation and repeated reference to People v. Mingo, 12 IMI.3d 563, 577 (2009) (noting the unreliability of a victim statement where it is "equivocal, inconsistent with other evidence, or seems dubio

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