In re Monika W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Monika W.

96 A.D.3d 1070, 946 N.Y.S.2d 895

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

DecidedJune 27, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A.D.3d 1070 (In re Monika W.) 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

In re Monika W., 96 A.D.3d 1070, 946 N.Y.S.2d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (White, J.), dated February 18, 2011, which denied her motion to vacate her default in appearing at fact-finding and dispositional hearings. Assigned counsel for the mother has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the mother’s assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, [1071]*107147 NY2d 606 [1979]). Dillon, J.P., Eng, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

— In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (White, J.), dated February 18, 2011, which denied her motion to vacate her default in appearing at fact-finding and dispositional hearings. Assigned counsel for the mother has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the mother’s assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; cf. People v Gonzalez, [1071]*107147 NY2d 606 [1979]). Dillon, J.P., Eng, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 1070, 946 N.Y.S.2d 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-monika-w-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack