Stuart v. Stuart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stuart v. Stuart

21 A.D.3d 967, 800 N.Y.S.2d 644

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

DecidedSeptember 12, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.3d 967 (Stuart v. Stuart) 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

Stuart v. Stuart, 21 A.D.3d 967, 800 N.Y.S.2d 644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Mc-Elrath, J.), dated August 5, 2003, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Hickey, H.E.), dated April 21, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied, without prejudice, his application for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

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

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 Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]). Prudenti, P.J., Crane, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Mc-Elrath, J.), dated August 5, 2003, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Hickey, H.E.), dated April 21, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied, without prejudice, his application for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

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

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 Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]). Prudenti, P.J., Crane, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 967, 800 N.Y.S.2d 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stuart-v-stuart-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack