Matter of Jade Yun Hon v. Tin Yat Chin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Jade Yun Hon v. Tin Yat Chin

2017 NY Slip Op 1695, 148 A.D.3d 810, 48 N.Y.S.3d 718

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2017

Docket2015-07951

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1695 (Matter of Jade Yun Hon v. Tin Yat Chin) 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 Jade Yun Hon v. Tin Yat Chin, 2017 NY Slip Op 1695, 148 A.D.3d 810, 48 N.Y.S.3d 718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by Tin Yat Chin from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Dennis Lebwohl, J.), dated July 15, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied his motion to vacate an order of protection of that court dated February 21, 2014, which, after an inquest, and upon a finding that he committed family offenses within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until February 20, 2016. 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 order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, 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]), and we have also reviewed the appellant’s pro se supplemental brief. 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 id.; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]).

Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by Tin Yat Chin from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Dennis Lebwohl, J.), dated July 15, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied his motion to vacate an order of protection of that court dated February 21, 2014, which, after an inquest, and upon a finding that he committed family offenses within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until February 20, 2016. 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 order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, 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]), and we have also reviewed the appellant’s pro se supplemental brief. 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 id.; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252 [2011]).

Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1695, 148 A.D.3d 810, 48 N.Y.S.3d 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-jade-yun-hon-v-tin-yat-chin-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack