In re Samantha G. Administration for Children's Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Samantha G. Administration for Children's Services

82 A.D.3d 885, 918 N.Y.2d 351

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 885 (In re Samantha G. Administration for Children's Services) 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 Samantha G. Administration for Children's Services, 82 A.D.3d 885, 918 N.Y.2d 351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Under the particular and unusual circumstances of this case, and based upon our independent review of the record, we agree with assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which can be raised on appeal (see Matter of Justina Rose D., 28 AD3d 659 [2006]; Matter of Paul Michael L., 305 AD2d 684 [2003]; Matter of Jacque Dominic J., 264 AD2d 845 [1999]; Mat[886]*886ter of LaRose v Wright, 271 AD2d 610, 611 [2000]). At the hearing, the appellant adduced no evidence to support his petition for visitation with his daughter, who is now 13 years old. All of the evidence adduced compelled the conclusion that visitation between the appellant and the subject child was not in her best interest (see Domestic Relations Law § 240; Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d 576 [2010], cert denied 562 US —, 131 S Ct 908 [2011]). Accordingly, given the evidence, any determination other than one denying the father’s petition for visitation would have been an abuse of discretion as a matter of law, and any argument to the contrary would be frivolous.

Therefore, counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel to the father is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]). Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Under the particular and unusual circumstances of this case, and based upon our independent review of the record, we agree with assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which can be raised on appeal (see Matter of Justina Rose D., 28 AD3d 659 [2006]; Matter of Paul Michael L., 305 AD2d 684 [2003]; Matter of Jacque Dominic J., 264 AD2d 845 [1999]; Mat[886]*886ter of LaRose v Wright, 271 AD2d 610, 611 [2000]). At the hearing, the appellant adduced no evidence to support his petition for visitation with his daughter, who is now 13 years old. All of the evidence adduced compelled the conclusion that visitation between the appellant and the subject child was not in her best interest (see Domestic Relations Law § 240; Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d 576 [2010], cert denied 562 US —, 131 S Ct 908 [2011]). Accordingly, given the evidence, any determination other than one denying the father’s petition for visitation would have been an abuse of discretion as a matter of law, and any argument to the contrary would be frivolous.

Therefore, counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel to the father is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]). Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 885, 918 N.Y.2d 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-samantha-g-administration-for-childrens-services-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack