Cohen v. Cohen

2021 NY Slip Op 00790, 138 N.Y.S.3d 311, 191 A.D.3d 460
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 9, 2021
DocketDocket No. 304633/18 Appeal No. 13091-13091A Case No. 2020-02571 2020-04210
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2021 NY Slip Op 00790 (Cohen v. Cohen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cohen v. Cohen, 2021 NY Slip Op 00790, 138 N.Y.S.3d 311, 191 A.D.3d 460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

Cohen v Cohen (2021 NY Slip Op 00790)
Cohen v Cohen
2021 NY Slip Op 00790
Decided on February 09, 2021
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: February 09, 2021
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Gische, González, Shulman, JJ.

Docket No. 304633/18 Appeal No. 13091-13091A Case No. 2020-02571 2020-04210

[*1]Matthew Cohen, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Cortney Cohen, Defendant-Appellant.


Advocate, LLP, New York (Jason A. Advocate of counsel), for appellant.

Kamerman, Uncyk, Soniker & Klein, P.C., New York (Akiva Meir Cohen of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lori S. Sattler, J.), entered September 10, 2019, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant-wife's cross motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered July 7, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant-wife's motion for interim counsel fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the court that issues of fact exist regarding whether the reissuance of shares to plaintiff husband's separate property in joint names constituted a gift to the wife (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying the wife's motion for interim attorney fees since the parties' prenuptial agreement included a fee waiver, and the circumstances do not weigh against enforcement of the agreement at this juncture (see Anonymous v Anonymous, 123 AD3d 581, 584-585 [1st Dept 2014]; cf. Soltanpour v Koch, 176 AD3d 570 [1st Dept 2019]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: February 9, 2021



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cohen v. Cohen
2022 NY Slip Op 05657 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2021 NY Slip Op 00790, 138 N.Y.S.3d 311, 191 A.D.3d 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-cohen-nyappdiv-2021.