In re Zuleyka D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Zuleyka D.

69 A.D.3d 850, 893 N.Y.2d 772

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 850 (In re Zuleyka D.) 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 Zuleyka D., 69 A.D.3d 850, 893 N.Y.2d 772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[851]*851We have reviewed the record and agree with assigned counsel for the mother that there Eire no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; Matter of Robert David L., 16 AD3d 508 [2005]).

To vacate the order of fact-finding and disposition, the father was required to show that there was a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious defense (see Matter of Francisco R., 19 AD3d 502 [2005]). The father did not make the requisite showing (see Matter of Cassidy Sue R., 58 AD3d 744 [2009]).

The father’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

[851]*851We have reviewed the record and agree with assigned counsel for the mother that there Eire no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; Matter of Robert David L., 16 AD3d 508 [2005]).

To vacate the order of fact-finding and disposition, the father was required to show that there was a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious defense (see Matter of Francisco R., 19 AD3d 502 [2005]). The father did not make the requisite showing (see Matter of Cassidy Sue R., 58 AD3d 744 [2009]).

The father’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 850, 893 N.Y.2d 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-zuleyka-d-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack