In re Troy A.R.W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Troy A.R.W.

113 A.D.3d 868, 978 N.Y.2d 897

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 29, 2014·Published

Opinion

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the father’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 the 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, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the father’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 the 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, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

In re Troy A.R.W., 113 A.D.3d 868, 978 N.Y.2d 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

113 A.D.3d 868 (In re Troy A.R.W.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related