Milman v. Shehupak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Milman v. Shehupak

56 A.D.2d 782, 867 N.Y.S.2d 688

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

DecidedNovember 25, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 782 (Milman v. Shehupak) 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

Milman v. Shehupak, 56 A.D.2d 782, 867 N.Y.S.2d 688 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Semen Mil-man appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J), dated May 23, 2007, which, after a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. 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.

[783]*783We have reviewed the record and agree with the appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal (see e.g. Matter of Bodouva v Bodouva, 53 AD3d 483 [2008]; Matter of Burke v Burke, 45 AD3d 591, 592 [2007]; Matter of Hodges v Hodges, 40 AD3d 639 [2007]; Matter of Lane v Lane, 8 AD3d 486 [2004]). Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is therefore granted (see Matter of Ingle v Ingle, 19 AD3d 420 [2005]; Matter of Mejias v Aleman, 10 AD3d 421 [2004]; see also Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]). Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

— In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Semen Mil-man appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J), dated May 23, 2007, which, after a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. 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.

[783]*783We have reviewed the record and agree with the appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal (see e.g. Matter of Bodouva v Bodouva, 53 AD3d 483 [2008]; Matter of Burke v Burke, 45 AD3d 591, 592 [2007]; Matter of Hodges v Hodges, 40 AD3d 639 [2007]; Matter of Lane v Lane, 8 AD3d 486 [2004]). Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is therefore granted (see Matter of Ingle v Ingle, 19 AD3d 420 [2005]; Matter of Mejias v Aleman, 10 AD3d 421 [2004]; see also Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]). Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 782, 867 N.Y.S.2d 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milman-v-shehupak-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack