Mejias v. Aleman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mejias v. Aleman

10 A.D.3d 421, 780 N.Y.S.2d 737, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10301

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

DecidedAugust 16, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 421 (Mejias v. Aleman) 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

Mejias v. Aleman, 10 A.D.3d 421, 780 N.Y.S.2d 737, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Karopkin, J.), dated May 29, 2003, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Matter of McM., 255 AD2d 515 [1998]; cf. Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]).

The appellant has not raised any nonfrivolous issues in his pro se supplemental brief. Smith, J.P., H. Miller, S. Miller and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Karopkin, J.), dated May 29, 2003, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Matter of McM., 255 AD2d 515 [1998]; cf. Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]).

The appellant has not raised any nonfrivolous issues in his pro se supplemental brief. Smith, J.P., H. Miller, S. Miller and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 421, 780 N.Y.S.2d 737, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mejias-v-aleman-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack