Penn v. Penn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Penn v. Penn

19 A.D.3d 700, 797 N.Y.S.2d 296, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7247

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

DecidedJune 27, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.3d 700 (Penn v. Penn) 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

Penn v. Penn, 19 A.D.3d 700, 797 N.Y.S.2d 296, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding, inter alia, for visitation pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Seiden, R.), dated January 13, 2004, which, after a hearing, granted his petition only to the extent of awarding him additional visitation.

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

We have reviewed the record and agree with the father’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could [701]*701be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]).

The appellant has not raised any nonfrivolous issue in his supplemental pro se brief. Florio, J.P., Adams, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding, inter alia, for visitation pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Seiden, R.), dated January 13, 2004, which, after a hearing, granted his petition only to the extent of awarding him additional visitation.

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

We have reviewed the record and agree with the father’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could [701]*701be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]).

The appellant has not raised any nonfrivolous issue in his supplemental pro se brief. Florio, J.P., Adams, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 700, 797 N.Y.S.2d 296, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penn-v-penn-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack