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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 25, 2008·Published

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] 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 (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] 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 (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.

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

Pincite

56 A.D.2d 782 (Milman v. Shehupak) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related