Not Established Legislative Notice We explain why we reject the Commonwealth’s argument that plaintiffs have been provided with adequate legislative notice of the procedures for reimbursement. In some circumstances, the publication of clear, reasonably comprehensible regulations publically available in hard copy and/or online may s es not extend to regulations that are not publically available. See, e.g., City of West Covina, 525 U.S. at 242, 119 S.Ct. 678 (“[N]otice of the procedures for protecting one’s property interests may be required when those procedures are arcane and are not set forth in documents accessible to the public.” (discussing Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 1554, 56 L.Ed.2d 30 (1978))); Butler v. Castro, 896 F.2d 698, 703 (2d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, the Commonwealth’s
holding basic elements of due process are notice and a right to be heard holding that where new york citys procedures for returning seized property were contained in an unpublished judicial order and not reflected in the most updated version of the municipal code the city failed to demonstrate legislative notice and the administrative scheme violated the basic notice requirements of the due process clause holding that the plaintiffs benefits were found in the new york state constitution and vested in the plaintiffs by the terms of a statutory scheme holding notice of balance due satisfies notice and demand requirements holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city