Matter of Cindy M. v. Marisol M.

201 A.D.3d 592, 157 N.Y.S.3d 727, 2022 NY Slip Op 00506
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 27, 2022
DocketDocket No. O-10788-20 Appeal No. 14827 Case No. 2021-00899
StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.3d 592 (Matter of Cindy M. v. Marisol M.) 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 Cindy M. v. Marisol M., 201 A.D.3d 592, 157 N.Y.S.3d 727, 2022 NY Slip Op 00506 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Matter of Cindy M. v Marisol M. (2022 NY Slip Op 00506)
Matter of Cindy M. v Marisol M.
2022 NY Slip Op 00506
Decided on January 27, 2022
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: January 27, 2022
Before: Kern, J.P., Kennedy, Scarpulla, Mendez, Shulman, JJ.

Docket No. O-10788-20 Appeal No. 14827 Case No. 2021-00899

[*1]In the Matter of Cindy M., Petitioner-Appellant,

v

Marisol M., Respondent-Respondent.


Law Office of Thomas R. Villecco, P.C., Jericho (Thomas R. Villecco of counsel), for appellant.



Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Leticia M. Ramirez, J.), entered on or about March 2, 2021, which denied petitioner's family offense petition seeking an order of protection, on behalf of her child, Destiney M., against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Application by petitioner's counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California , 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Saunders , 52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). A review of the record shows that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. The evidence fails to show that respondent's actions or inactions could

support a finding that she committed reckless endangerment or disorderly conduct (see Family Ct Act § 812; Penal Law §§ 120.20; 240.20). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: January 27, 2022



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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
People v. Saunders
52 A.D.2d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
201 A.D.3d 592, 157 N.Y.S.3d 727, 2022 NY Slip Op 00506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-cindy-m-v-marisol-m-nyappdiv-2022.