From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tunkel v. Toonkel

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 4, 2021
197 A.D.3d 473 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

2019–13579 Docket No. O–1454–18

08-04-2021

In the Matter of Nella TUNKEL, respondent, v. Julius TOONKEL, etc., appellant.

Leighton M. Jackson, New York, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se. Peter A. Wilner, Jamaica, NY, for respondent (no brief filed).


Leighton M. Jackson, New York, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Peter A. Wilner, Jamaica, NY, for respondent (no brief filed).

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Julius Toonkel appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Kings County (Anne E. O'Shea, J.), dated October 23, 2019. The order of protection, after a hearing, and upon a finding that Julius Toonkel committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degree, disorderly conduct, assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, menacing in the second degree, menacing in the third degree, and reckless endangerment in the second degree, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner and the subject children until and including October 23, 2020. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with ( Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 ), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

ORDERED that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by assigned counsel pursuant to ( Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 ), and we have also reviewed the appellant's pro se supplemental brief. Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see id. ; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.] , 89 A.D.3d 252, 931 N.Y.S.2d 676 ; see also Matter of Jade Yun Hon v. Tin Yat Chin , 148 A.D.3d 810, 48 N.Y.S.3d 718 ).

MASTRO, J.P., AUSTIN, HINDS–RADIX and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Tunkel v. Toonkel

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 4, 2021
197 A.D.3d 473 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Tunkel v. Toonkel

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Nella TUNKEL, respondent, v. Julius TOONKEL, etc.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Aug 4, 2021

Citations

197 A.D.3d 473 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
197 A.D.3d 473

Citing Cases

Boyle v. Johns

Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be…

Boyle v. Johns

Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be…