Game v. Game

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Game v. Game

52 A.D.3d 777, 859 N.Y.S.2d 384

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

DecidedJune 24, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.3d 777 (Game v. Game) 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

Game v. Game, 52 A.D.3d 777, 859 N.Y.S.2d 384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), entered October 31, 2005, as, upon a decision of the same court dated August 1, 2005, made after a nonjury trial, awarded the plaintiff custody of the parties’ three children.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the mother’s as[778]*778signed counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; Matter of Dyshea T., 17 AD3d 685 [2005]).

The contentions asserted by the mother in her supplemental pro se brief regarding the Supreme Court’s finding that the interests of the parties’ children were best served by awarding custody to the father are frivolous (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173 [1982]; Matter of Struble v Struble, 44 AD3d 1060 [2007]; Matter of Womack v Jackson, 30 AD3d 433, 434 [2006]). Skelos, J.P, Ritter, Florio and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), entered October 31, 2005, as, upon a decision of the same court dated August 1, 2005, made after a nonjury trial, awarded the plaintiff custody of the parties’ three children.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the mother’s as[778]*778signed counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; Matter of Dyshea T., 17 AD3d 685 [2005]).

The contentions asserted by the mother in her supplemental pro se brief regarding the Supreme Court’s finding that the interests of the parties’ children were best served by awarding custody to the father are frivolous (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173 [1982]; Matter of Struble v Struble, 44 AD3d 1060 [2007]; Matter of Womack v Jackson, 30 AD3d 433, 434 [2006]). Skelos, J.P, Ritter, Florio and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 777, 859 N.Y.S.2d 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/game-v-game-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack