Biles v. Biles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Biles v. Biles

132 A.D.3d 1332, 17 N.Y.S.3d 374

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2015

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.D.3d 1332 (Biles v. Biles) 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

Biles v. Biles, 132 A.D.3d 1332, 17 N.Y.S.3d 374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

The case is held, the decision is reserved, the motion to relieve counsel of assignment is granted and new counsel is to be assigned. Memorandum: By order entered August 26, 2014, upon respondent’s default, Family Court granted sole custody of the subject children to petitioner. Respondent’s assigned appellate counsel has moved to be relieved of the assignment on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We conclude that there is a nonfrivolous issue as to whether Family Court abused its discretion in denying the request by respondent’s trial counsel for an adjournment (see Tun v Aw, 10 AD3d 651, 652 [2004]). We therefore relieve appellate 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 an Order of Family Court, Oneida County, Randal B. Caldwell, J. — Custody).

Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

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

The case is held, the decision is reserved, the motion to relieve counsel of assignment is granted and new counsel is to be assigned. Memorandum: By order entered August 26, 2014, upon respondent’s default, Family Court granted sole custody of the subject children to petitioner. Respondent’s assigned appellate counsel has moved to be relieved of the assignment on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We conclude that there is a nonfrivolous issue as to whether Family Court abused its discretion in denying the request by respondent’s trial counsel for an adjournment (see Tun v Aw, 10 AD3d 651, 652 [2004]). We therefore relieve appellate 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 an Order of Family Court, Oneida County, Randal B. Caldwell, J. — Custody).

Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 1332, 17 N.Y.S.3d 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biles-v-biles-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack