"[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)

An attorney's motion to be relieved pursuant to Anders v California (386 U.S. 738), should be accompanied by a brief "'reciting the underlying facts and highlighting anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal'" (Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d 252, 256, quoting People v Saunders, 52 A.D.2d 833, 833; see People v Regalado, 192 A.D.3d 918, 919). As this Court has explained, "counsel must, at a minimum, draw the Court's attention to the relevant evidence, with specific references to the record; identify and assess the efficacy of any significant objections, applications, or motions; and identify possible issues for appeal, with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority" (Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 258).

The parties are directed to upload, through the digital portal on this Court’s website, digital copies of their respective briefs, with proof of service of one hard copy on each other (see 22 NYCRR 670.9[a]). [1–3] An attorney’s motion to be relieved pursuant to (Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493), should be accompanied by a brief " ‘reciting the underlying facts and highlighting anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal’ " (Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d 252, 256, 931 N.Y.S.2d 676, quoting People v. Saunders, 52 A.D.2d 833, 833, 384 N.Y.S.2d 161; see People v. Regalado, 192 A.D.3d 918, 919, 140 N.Y.S.3d 785). As this Court has explained, "counsel must, at a minimum, draw the Court’s attention to the relevant evidence, with specific references to the record; identify and assess the efficacy of any significant objections, applications, or motions; and identify possible issues for appeal, with reference to the facts of the case and relevant legal authority" (Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 258, 931 N.Y.S.2d 676).

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 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 counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 U.S. 738) is deficient because it fails to analyze potential legal issues with reference to relevant legal authority (see People v Espinal Regalado, 192 A.D.3d 918; People v Murray, 169 A.D.3d at 232; People v Brown, 158 A.D.3d 815, 816; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256; People v Williams, 135 A.D.3d 977, 977). Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel fulfilled his obligations under Anders v California, we must assign new counsel to represent the appellant (see People v Brown, 158 A.D.3d at 816; People v Sedita, 113 A.D.3d 638, 640; 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 counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 U.S. 738) is deficient because it fails to analyze potential legal issues with reference to relevant legal authority (see People v Espinal Regalado, 192 A.D.3d 918; People v Murray, 169 A.D.3d at 232; People v Brown, 158 A.D.3d 815, 816; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256; People v Williams, 135 A.D.3d 977, 977). Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel fulfilled his obligations under Anders v California, we must assign new counsel to represent the appellant (see People v Brown, 158 A.D.3d at 816; People v Sedita, 113 A.D.3d 638, 640; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d at 256).