Mariani v. Morgan
Opinion of the Court
The father’s cooperation over the ensuing months was minimal. In a March 2010 appearance before Family Court (Czajka, J.), the father agreed to follow a recommendation from a psychological evaluation of the children indicating that, before his visitation would resume, “he obtain a full and complete
Appellate counsel for respondent seeks to be relieved of his assignment upon the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to pursue on appeal (see People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]). Upon our review of the record and the parties’ submissions, we agree. The only matter before this Court is an appeal from Family Court’s dismissal of the most recent of the father’s petitions seeking to enforce a superceded order. Under these circumstances, the court’s order must be affirmed and the father’s counsel is relieved of his assignment (see Matter of Danielle L., 269 AD2d 704 [2000]).
Peters, P.J., Spain, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
o Citing Matter of Horike v Freedman (37 AD3d 978, 980 [2007]), Family Court also directed that the Greene County Family Court Clerk not accept any further papers from the father for filing unless done so by order to show cause.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.