Matter of Brinster v. Sklar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Brinster v. Sklar

142 A.D.3d 1166, 37 N.Y.S.3d 906

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2016

Docket2015-00330

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A.D.3d 1166 (Matter of Brinster v. Sklar) 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

Matter of Brinster v. Sklar, 142 A.D.3d 1166, 37 N.Y.S.3d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the *1167 father from a corrected order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Elaine Jackson Stack, J.H.O.), dated December 23, 2014. The corrected order dismissed the father’s petition alleging a violation of an order of visitation. The father’s assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

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

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]). 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]).

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the *1167 father from a corrected order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Elaine Jackson Stack, J.H.O.), dated December 23, 2014. The corrected order dismissed the father’s petition alleging a violation of an order of visitation. The father’s assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

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

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]). 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]).

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 1166, 37 N.Y.S.3d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-brinster-v-sklar-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack