In re Otis C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Otis C.

26 A.D.3d 376, 808 N.Y.S.2d 563

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 376 (In re Otis C.) 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 Otis C., 26 A.D.3d 376, 808 N.Y.S.2d 563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an adoption proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 7, Victor C., Jr., and Yasmin C. appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), dated February 4, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied a motion made on their behalf pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 71 for sibling visitation between them and the subject child. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

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

We have reviewed the record and agree with the nonparty appellants’ assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, supra). Florio, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

In an adoption proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 7, Victor C., Jr., and Yasmin C. appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), dated February 4, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied a motion made on their behalf pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 71 for sibling visitation between them and the subject child. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

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

We have reviewed the record and agree with the nonparty appellants’ assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, supra). Florio, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 376, 808 N.Y.S.2d 563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-otis-c-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack