Medina v. Figueroa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Medina v. Figueroa

16 A.D.3d 420, 790 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2287

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 420 (Medina v. Figueroa) 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

Medina v. Figueroa, 16 A.D.3d 420, 790 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2287 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act articles 6 and 8, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Sammarco, J.), dated February 27, 2004, which, inter alia, dismissed her petitions. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

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

We have reviewed the record and agree with the mother’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on her appeal. Thus, counsel’s application for leave to withdraw is granted (cf. Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, S. Miller and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

— In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act articles 6 and 8, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Sammarco, J.), dated February 27, 2004, which, inter alia, dismissed her petitions. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

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

We have reviewed the record and agree with the mother’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on her appeal. Thus, counsel’s application for leave to withdraw is granted (cf. Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]). H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, S. Miller and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 420, 790 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medina-v-figueroa-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack