Bearfield v. Peluse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bearfield v. Peluse

30 A.D.3d 1116, 816 N.Y.S.2d 396

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 9, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.3d 1116 (Bearfield v. Peluse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bearfield v. Peluse, 30 A.D.3d 1116, 816 N.Y.S.2d 396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

[1117]*1117counsel on appeal has moved to be relieved of the assignment and has submitted a brief in which he concludes that there are no nonfrivolous issues meriting this Court’s consideration (see Matter of Jordan S., 179 AD2d 1091 [1992]). The record establishes that by order entered July 19, 2005, without a hearing, the child’s paternal grandfather was granted custody, with supervised visitation to mother and father. By dismissing mother’s modification petition, Family Court continued custody with grandfather. The motion submissions raise the question whether the court erred in dismissing mother’s petition without a hearing and without having made findings as to the issues of extraordinary circumstances and the best interests of the child. Therefore, we relieve counsel of his assignment and assign new counsel to brief this issue, as well as any other issues that counsel’s review of the record may disclose. (Appeal from order of Family Court, Cattaraugus County, Paul B. Kelly, J.H.O.— Custody.) Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Green and Hayes, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[1117]*1117counsel on appeal has moved to be relieved of the assignment and has submitted a brief in which he concludes that there are no nonfrivolous issues meriting this Court’s consideration (see Matter of Jordan S., 179 AD2d 1091 [1992]). The record establishes that by order entered July 19, 2005, without a hearing, the child’s paternal grandfather was granted custody, with supervised visitation to mother and father. By dismissing mother’s modification petition, Family Court continued custody with grandfather. The motion submissions raise the question whether the court erred in dismissing mother’s petition without a hearing and without having made findings as to the issues of extraordinary circumstances and the best interests of the child. Therefore, we relieve counsel of his assignment and assign new counsel to brief this issue, as well as any other issues that counsel’s review of the record may disclose. (Appeal from order of Family Court, Cattaraugus County, Paul B. Kelly, J.H.O.— Custody.) Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Green and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 1116, 816 N.Y.S.2d 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bearfield-v-peluse-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack