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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 16, 2004·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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.

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

10 A.D.3d 421 (Mejias v. Aleman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related