In re Serenity Celene M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Serenity Celene M.

93 A.D.3d 448, 939 N.Y.S.2d 697

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 8, 2012·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal from order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Fernando Silva, J.), entered on or about June 3, 2011, which, among other things, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent father’s parental rights to the subject child and committed the child’s custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously dismissed, without costs, and the motion to relieve assigned counsel granted.

Upon our review of respondent’s assigned counsel’s motion and the record, we agree that the subject order is nonappealable since it was entered following respondent’s default at both the fact-finding and dispositional hearings (Matter of Zoraida Marie C., 66 AD3d 486 [2009]). In any event, there are no nonfrivolous issues that could be raised on appeal (id.; Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833 [1976]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

Appeal from order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Fernando Silva, J.), entered on or about June 3, 2011, which, among other things, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent father’s parental rights to the subject child and committed the child’s custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously dismissed, without costs, and the motion to relieve assigned counsel granted.

Upon our review of respondent’s assigned counsel’s motion and the record, we agree that the subject order is nonappealable since it was entered following respondent’s default at both the fact-finding and dispositional hearings (Matter of Zoraida Marie C., 66 AD3d 486 [2009]). In any event, there are no nonfrivolous issues that could be raised on appeal (id.; Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833 [1976]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

In re Serenity Celene M., 93 A.D.3d 448, 939 N.Y.S.2d 697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

93 A.D.3d 448 (In re Serenity Celene M.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related