General
In the Matter of Phillip Hohn, Respondent, v. Nancy Guirand, Appellant
90 A.D.3d 928934 N.Y.S.2d 815·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2011·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of Phillip Hohn, Respondent, v Nancy Guirand, Appellant.
[934 NYS2d 815]
[MAJORITY]
“In analyzing whether nonfrivolous appellate issues exist, it is essential to appreciate the distinction between a potential appellate argument that is merely meritless or unlikely to prevail and one that is frivolous” (Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252, 258 [2011]). Here, upon this Court’s independent review of the record, we conclude that a nonfrivolous issue exists as to whether the determination of the Family Court is supported by the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Sblendorio v D'Agostino, 60 AD3d 773, 774 [2009]; Matter of Hasbrouck v Hasbrouck, 59 AD3d 621 [2009]). Since a review of the record by the Appellate Division cannot substitute for “the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel,” assignment of new counsel is warranted (People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906, 907 [1986]; see Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 AD3d 252, 259 [2011]). Mastro, A.EJ., Angiolillo, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.