From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Harlem-Dowling v. Laverne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 8, 1991
169 A.D.2d 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

January 8, 1991

Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Sheldon M. Rand, F.C.J.).


Assigned appellate counsel has submitted a brief summarizing the evidence and seeking to be relieved on the ground that he has been unable to find meritorious grounds or legal points of error in support of the appeal. Counsel has also filed, without discussion or analysis of content, appellant's pro se "brief" advancing various arguments in her behalf.

In accordance with the procedures enunciated in People v Saunders ( 52 A.D.2d 833), assigned counsel who determines an appeal to be "wholly frivolous" should bring to the court's attention "anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal". Where, as here, the client has presented issues to be raised on appeal, counsel's obligation is not met by the mere expedient of placing a legal back upon the pro se papers and forwarding them to the court. (See, People v Gonzalez, 47 N.Y.2d 606. ) Rather, assigned counsel who seeks to withdraw "has an obligation not only to investigate the possible merit of any issues, but also to indicate the reasons why he concludes they lack merit". (People v Pujals, 137 A.D.2d 102, 103, amended 141 A.D.2d 339.)

Upon examination of this record and appellant's pro se submission, we conclude that there exist appealable issues which require the attention of "single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel". (People v Casiano, 67 N.Y.2d 906, 907.) While we express no view on the ultimate disposition of any such issue, we note that these include, inter alia, whether the evidence at the hearing regarding the period of permanent neglect covered a "period of more than one year" as required for a finding of permanent neglect, and whether appellant was physically and financially able to maintain contact. (Social Services Law § 384-b.)

Appellate counsel may also deem it appropriate to examine the circumstances under which the children were ultimately placed in a foster care home other than that contemplated at the time of the hearing.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Harlem-Dowling v. Laverne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 8, 1991
169 A.D.2d 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Matter of Harlem-Dowling v. Laverne

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of HARLEM-DOWLING CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Respondent, v…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 8, 1991

Citations

169 A.D.2d 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
564 N.Y.S.2d 139

Citing Cases

MC v. GC

This requirement is construed strictly, even when it is the client who wishes to discharge counsel (…