Robert Largo v. New York

Questions PPiESemtej> L Was Itew WK Penal Law f faO.35^ suWLm, original^ entitled Mandatorj pwl+ij assessmnt r^ulrdl in certain cases4,' presently 'Cnti+kd 'MandAnj Surcharge, and enwe, victim as-appW +a Pd'Hiwr viohtM orf Ku riojbt to hutProdiM under tht fourWnth ftMCnfent ot UniW States Constitution whw Petitioner was neither provided notice nor opportunity to be heard concerning Monetary exaction said statute called for ? W imposition rf Itew WK Penal Law § b0.35, suM«ont) as-applied to Petitioner result in State pupdratin^ extrinsic fraud upon Petitioner 2