The brief fails to adequately analyze potential appellate issues or highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel merely recites the underlying facts and states a bare conclusion that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal (see People v Adams, 192 A.D.3d 821, 822; People v Rojas, 188 A.D.3d 726; People v Sofo, 186 A.D.3d 873, 875).

The brief fails to adequately analyze potential appellate issues or highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel merely recites the underlying facts and states a bare conclusion that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal (see People v. Adams, 192 A.D.3d 821, 822, 139 N.Y.S.3d 865; People v. Rojas, 188 A.D.3d 726, 131 N.Y.S.3d 614; People v. Sofa, 186 A.D.3d 873, 875, 127 N.Y.S.3d 804).

"[W]here counsel has failed in his or her role as advocate by filing a deficient brief, on this basis alone, new counsel will be assigned to represent the appellant on the appeal" (id. at 258; see People v Singh, 210 A.D.3d 1017, 1018). Here, the brief submitted by assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 U.S. 738) is deficient because it fails to analyze potential legal issues with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority (see People v Holley, 193 A.D.3d 878; People v Regalado, 192 A.D.3d 918; People v Adams, 192 A.D.3d 821; People v Persaud, 187 A.D.3d 1060, 1062; People v Santos, 180 A.D.3d 941; People v Sedita, 113 A.D.3d 638, 640; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256). The analysis does little more than assert the conclusory opinion of assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal (see People v Santos, 180 A.D.3d 941; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256)

If assigned counsel's brief is deficient in this respect, "new counsel must be assigned to perform a new appellate review" (People v Murray, 169 A.D.3d at 232). The brief submitted by the defendant's counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 U.S. 738) is deficient because it fails to analyze potential legal issues with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority (see People v Holley, 193 A.D.3d 878; People v Regalado, 192 A.D.3d 918; People v Adams, 192 A.D.3d 821; People v Persaud, 187 A.D.3d 1060, 1062; People v Santos, 180 A.D.3d 941; People v Sedita, 113 A.D.3d 638, 640; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256). After reciting the facts relating to the defendant's plea and sentence, the brief merely states in conclusory fashion that no nonfrivolous issues exist (see People v Santos, 180 A.D.3d 941; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256).

If assigned counsel's brief is deficient in this respect, "new counsel must be assigned to perform a new appellate review" ( People v. Murray, 169 A.D.3d at 232, 93 N.Y.S.3d 694 ). The brief submitted by the defendant's counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 is deficient because it fails to analyze potential legal issues with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority (seePeople v. Holley, 193 A.D.3d 878, 142 N.Y.S.3d 376 ; People v. Regalado, 192 A.D.3d 918, 140 N.Y.S.3d 785 ; People v. Adams, 192 A.D.3d 821, 139 N.Y.S.3d 865 ; People v. Persaud, 187 A.D.3d 1060, 1062, 131 N.Y.S.3d 187 ; People v. Santos, 180 A.D.3d 941, 115 N.Y.S.3d 907 ; People v. Sedita, 113 A.D.3d 638, 640, 978 N.Y.S.2d 318 ; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256, 931 N.Y.S.2d 676 ). After reciting the facts relating to the defendant's plea and sentence, the brief merely states in conclusory fashion that no nonfrivolous issues exist (seePeople v. Santos, 180 A.D.3d 941, 115 N.Y.S.3d 907 ; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256, 931 N.Y.S.2d 676 ).

If assigned counsel's Anders brief is deficient in this respect, "new counsel must be assigned to perform a new appellate review" ( People v. Murray, 169 A.D.3d at 232, 93 N.Y.S.3d 694 ). Here, the brief submitted by the appellant's assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 is deficient because it fails to analyze potential legal issues with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority (seePeople v. Holley, 193 A.D.3d 878, 142 N.Y.S.3d 376 ; People v. Regalado, 192 A.D.3d 918, 140 N.Y.S.3d 785 ; People v. Adams, 192 A.D.3d 821, 139 N.Y.S.3d 865 ; People v. Persaud, 187 A.D.3d 1060, 1062, 131 N.Y.S.3d 187 ; People v. Santos, 180 A.D.3d 941, 115 N.Y.S.3d 907 ; People v. Sedita, 113 A.D.3d 638, 640, 978 N.Y.S.2d 318 ; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256, 931 N.Y.S.2d 676 ). After reciting the facts relating to the appellant's plea and sentence, the brief merely states in conclusory fashion that no nonfrivolous issues exist (seePeople v. Santos, 180 A.D.3d 941, 115 N.Y.S.3d 907 ; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256, 931 N.Y.S.2d 676 ).

If assigned counsel's Anders brief is deficient in this respect, "new counsel must be assigned to perform a new appellate review" (People v Murray, 169 A.D.3d at 232). Here, the brief submitted by the appellant's assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 U.S. 738) is deficient because it fails to analyze potential legal issues with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority (see People v Holley, 193 A.D.3d 878; People v Regalado, 192 A.D.3d 918; People v Adams, 192 A.D.3d 821; People v Persaud, 187 A.D.3d 1060, 1062; People v Santos, 180 A.D.3d 941; People v Sedita, 113 A.D.3d 638, 640; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256). After reciting the facts relating to the appellant's plea and sentence, the brief merely states in conclusory fashion that no nonfrivolous issues exist (see People v Santos, 180 A.D.3d 941; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256).

If assigned counsel's Anders brief is deficient in this respect, "new counsel must be assigned to perform a new appellate review" (People v. Murray, 169 A.D.3d at 232). Here, the brief submitted by the appellant's assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v. California (386 U.S. 738) is deficient because it fails to analyze potential legal issues with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority (see People v. Holley, 193 A.D.3d 878; People v. Regalado, 192 A.D.3d 918; People v. Adams, 192 A.D.3d 821; People v. Persaud, 187 A.D.3d 1060, 1062; People v. Santos, 180 A.D.3d 941; People v. Sedita, 113 A.D.3d 638, 640; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256). After reciting the facts relating to the appellant's plea and sentence, the brief merely states in conclusory fashion that no nonfrivolous issues exist (see People v. Santos, 180 A.D.3d 941; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256).

If assigned counsel's brief is deficient in this respect, "new counsel must be assigned to perform a new appellate review" (People v Murray, 169 A.D.3d at 232). The brief submitted by the defendant's counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 U.S. 738) is deficient because it fails to analyze potential legal issues with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority (see People v Holley, 193 A.D.3d 878; People v Regalado, 192 A.D.3d 918; People v Adams, 192 A.D.3d 821; People v Persaud, 187 A.D.3d 1060, 1062; People v Santos, 180 A.D.3d 941; People v Sedita, 113 A.D.3d 638, 640; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256). After reciting the facts relating to the defendant's plea and sentence, the brief merely states in conclusory fashion that no nonfrivolous issues exist (see People v Santos, 180 A.D.3d 941; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256).

If assigned counsel's Anders brief is deficient in this respect, "new counsel must be assigned to perform a new appellate review" (People v Murray, 169 A.D.3d at 232). Here, the brief submitted by the appellant's assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 U.S. 738) is deficient because it fails to analyze potential legal issues with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority (see People v Holley, 193 A.D.3d 878; People v Regalado, 192 A.D.3d 918; People v Adams, 192 A.D.3d 821; People v Persaud, 187 A.D.3d 1060, 1062; People v Santos, 180 A.D.3d 941; People v Sedita, 113 A.D.3d 638, 640; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256). After reciting the facts relating to the appellant's plea and sentence, the brief merely states in conclusory fashion that no nonfrivolous issues exist (see People v Santos, 180 A.D.3d 941; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256).