g a minor to perform a sex act on him during a “massage.” Although he was never indicted or convicted for hiring any other underage girls, the state Appellate Division found there was “clear and convincing evidence” he had indeed done so, making the Level 3 designation appropriate. a2 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011943 --- P

ed for hiring any other underage girls, the state Appellate Division found there was “clear and convincing evidence” h

rney representative.” She - had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a “good friend in the Appellate Division.” Ms. Villafana’s account was misleading, as it omitted that this “good friend” was her live-in boyfriend, and that Mr. Ocariz was his former law-s

le documents under seal. This is not particular to People v. Epstein; it is routine across our appellate filings. My understanding is that it is also the Appellate Division’s (the court's) practice to maintain such seal. That being said, | have discussed your second question with our attorneys. If the Post petitions the c

torney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms. account was misleading, as it omitted that this "good friend" was her live-in boyfriend, and that Mr. Ocariz was his former law-school roomm