Mary R. v. Mohammed T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mary R. v. Mohammed T.

20 A.D.3d 539, 797 N.Y.S.2d 912

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

DecidedJuly 18, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.3d 539 (Mary R. v. Mohammed T.) 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

Mary R. v. Mohammed T., 20 A.D.3d 539, 797 N.Y.S.2d 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, Sidi Mohammed T. appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Morgenstern, J.), dated March 29, 2004, which adjudicated him to be the father of the subject child on the ground of equitable estoppel.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant is granted (see Matter of Isabel M. v Benigno P., 18 AD3d 555 [2005]; Matter of Ayesha Shandeia McM., 255 AD2d 515 [1998]; cf. Anders v California, 386 US 738, 744 [1967]). S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, Sidi Mohammed T. appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Morgenstern, J.), dated March 29, 2004, which adjudicated him to be the father of the subject child on the ground of equitable estoppel.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant is granted (see Matter of Isabel M. v Benigno P., 18 AD3d 555 [2005]; Matter of Ayesha Shandeia McM., 255 AD2d 515 [1998]; cf. Anders v California, 386 US 738, 744 [1967]). S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.3d 539, 797 N.Y.S.2d 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mary-r-v-mohammed-t-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack