Matter of Stephany C. v. Jose C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Stephany C. v. Jose C.

121 A.D.3d 429, 992 N.Y.S.2d 889

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2014

Docket13073

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.3d 429 (Matter of Stephany C. v. Jose C.) 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 Stephany C. v. Jose C., 121 A.D.3d 429, 992 N.Y.S.2d 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Fiordaliza A. Rodriguez, Ref.), entered on or about October 17, 2013, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition by appellant mother for custody of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. The record demonstrates that appellant voluntarily appeared and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Maryland, Baltimore County (Jan Marshall Alexander, J), which rendered a judgment of divorce and custody that resolved the custodial issues raised in her custody petition (see Matter of Tick v Tick, 96 AD2d 657, 657-658 [3d Dept 1983]).

Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Fiordaliza A. Rodriguez, Ref.), entered on or about October 17, 2013, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition by appellant mother for custody of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. The record demonstrates that appellant voluntarily appeared and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Maryland, Baltimore County (Jan Marshall Alexander, J), which rendered a judgment of divorce and custody that resolved the custodial issues raised in her custody petition (see Matter of Tick v Tick, 96 AD2d 657, 657-658 [3d Dept 1983]).

Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 429, 992 N.Y.S.2d 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-stephany-c-v-jose-c-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack