You are here: / / Anders Brief Rejected
,

Anders Brief Rejected

In finding an “Anders” brief insufficient, the Second Department wrote:

The brief submitted by the appellant’s assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738) is deficient because it fails to adequately recite the underlying facts in the case and analyze potential appellate issues or highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal … . Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel acted “as an active advocate on behalf of his . . . client” …, we must assign new counsel to represent the appellant… . People v Francis, 2013 NY Slip Op 07058, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

You might also like
Question of Fact About Whether Order Given by Private Attending Physician and Carried Out by Hospital Employee Was Contraindicated—Therefore Hospital’s Motion to Dismiss Properly Denied
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO SERVE DEFENDANT BEFORE USING THE AFFIX AND MAIL PROCEDURE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DETECTIVE WHO CONDUCTED THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS AWARE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL BUT DID NOT NOTIFY COUNSEL OF THE PROCEDURE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER FENCING CLUB WAS LIABLE FOR THE SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A FENCING STUDENT BY A FENCING COACH, CLUB’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CRITERIA FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-b EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS STREET-STOP-FRISK CASE, THE POLICE OFFICER TESTIFIED HE SAW DEFENDANT PUT A BLACK OBJECT IN HIS JACKET POCKET, BUT HE DID NOT TESTIFY HE HAD A REASONABLE SUSPICION THE OBJECT WAS A FIREARM; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE STOP AND FRISK; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECON DEPT).
FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE IN THE ANSWER IS NO LONGER DEEMED A WAIVER OF THE DEFENSE; DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HER ANSWER (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Curtailing of Defense Counsel’s Summation Argument Re: Lack of Motive Was... People Could Not Appeal Judge’s Vacation of Defendant’s Conviction and Sentencing...