Epstein Secrets

tected liberty interest that entitles them to procedural due process. See Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); see also People v. David W., 95 N.Y.2d 130, 138 (2000) (holding that the imposition of a Level 3 SORA determination implicates liberty interests and triggers due process safe

ppropriate where the apparent impartiality of the lower court has been legitimately questioned, as it most certainly has here. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008) (remanding resentencing matter to a different Justice where the "appearance of fairness and impartiality [was]

D.2d 99 (2d Dep't 2003) '31 People v. Coffey, 45 A.D.3d 658 (2d Dep't 2007) 24 People v. Curthoys, 77 A.D.3d 1215 (3d Dep't 2010) 27 People v. David W., 95 N.Y.2d 130 (2000) :32 iii EFTA00181029 EFTA00181030 People v. Dominie, 42 A.D.3d 589 (3d Dep't 2007) 19 People v. Donk, 39 A.D.3d 126

ppropriate where the apparent impartiality of the lower court has been legitimately questioned, as it most certainly has here. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008) (remanding resentencing matter to a different Justice where the "appearance of fairness and impartiality [was]

31 People v. Brooks, 308 A.D.2d 99 (2d Dep't 2003) 31 People v. Coffey, 45 A.D.3d 658 (2d Dep't 2007) 24 People v. Curthoys, 27 People v. David W., 95 N.Y.2d 130 (2000) 32 iii EFTA00232664 People v. Dominie, 42 A.D.3d 589 (3d Dep't 2007) 19 People v. Donk, 39 A.D.3d 1268 (4th Dep't 200

ppropriate where the apparent impartiality of the lower court has been legitimately questioned, as it most certainly has here. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008) (remanding resentencing matter to a different Justice where the "appearance of fairness and impartiality [was]