From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Milman v. Shehupak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 25, 2008
56 A.D.3d 782 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2007-05552.

November 25, 2008.

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Semen Milman 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), in which he moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

Leighton M. Jackson, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Michael C. Director, Garden City, N.Y., for respondent (no brief filed).

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., PETER B. SKELOS, RUTH C. BALKIN, ARIEL E. BELEN, JJ.

Before: Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Balkin and Belen, JJ.


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 ( see e.g. Matter of Bodouva v Bodouva, 53 AD3d 483; Matter of Burke v Burke, 45 AD3d 591, 592; Matter of Hodges v Hodges, 40 AD3d 639; Matter of Lane v Lane, 8 AD3d 486). Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is therefore granted ( see Matter of Ingle v Ingle, 19 AD3d 420; Matter of Mejias v Aleman, 10 AD3d 421; see also Anders v California, 386 US 738).


Summaries of

Milman v. Shehupak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 25, 2008
56 A.D.3d 782 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Milman v. Shehupak

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SEMEN MILMAN, Appellant, v. YEUGENIY SHEHUPAK, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 25, 2008

Citations

56 A.D.3d 782 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9403
867 N.Y.S.2d 688

Citing Cases

Matter of Feinerman v. Boces

Indeed, public policy considerations would appear to pose a greater impediment to allowing a tenured teacher…

Matter Lezette v. Bd. of Educ., Hudson

Respondent contends that in any event petitioner, as a probationary teacher, did not have seniority rights in…