In re Sandra N.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Sandra N.

100 A.D.3d 489, 953 N.Y.S.2d 852

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.3d 489 (In re Sandra N.) 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 Sandra N., 100 A.D.3d 489, 953 N.Y.S.2d 852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Family Court, New York County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on or about July 22, 2011, which dismissed petitioner’s application for custody of the subject children, and order, same court and Judge, entered on or about September 14, [490]*4902011, denying petitioner’s motion to vacate the order of dismissal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Application by petitioner’s assigned counsel to be relieved as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed the record and agree with counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues that could be raised on this appeal. Concur— Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

— Order, Family Court, New York County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on or about July 22, 2011, which dismissed petitioner’s application for custody of the subject children, and order, same court and Judge, entered on or about September 14, [490]*4902011, denying petitioner’s motion to vacate the order of dismissal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Application by petitioner’s assigned counsel to be relieved as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed the record and agree with counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues that could be raised on this appeal. Concur— Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 489, 953 N.Y.S.2d 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sandra-n-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack