People v. David W., 95 NY2d 130 [2000] the Court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge test in the context of whether or not a defendant convicted of a sex offense was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before being placed on the Sex Offender Registry. The Court found that "defendant's private interest, his liberty interest in not being stigmatized as a sexually violent predator, is substantial." (David W. at 137 .) Further, "under the second prong of the Mathews analysis, the procedures in place for this probationer-defendant, however, do not sufficiently prevent 'the risk of an erroneous deprivation of defendant's interest.' " (David W. at 138.) Thus, in holding that the "review procedures provided to defendant here do not bridge the due process gap," the court stated that "under the third prong of the Mathews analysis, the fiscal and administrative burdens imposed by requiring notice and opportunity to be heard are not prohibitive and are not so significant as to warrant limiting defendant to the procedures the Legislature provided." (David W. at 139 .)