Harriet Newman Cohen

Top rated Family Law attorney in New York, New York

Cohen Stine Kapoor LLP
Harriet Newman Cohen
Cohen Stine Kapoor LLP
212-512-0801
Contact me today

Practice Areas: Family Law; view more

Licensed in New York since: 1975

Education: Brooklyn Law School

Selected to Super Lawyers: 2006 - 2024

Call today:
212-512-0801

Contact me today
Virtual Appointments

Cohen Stine Kapoor LLP

11 Times Square
10th Floor
New York, NY 10036 Visit website

Attorney Harriet Newman Cohen is a founding partner of Cohen Stine Kapoor LLP law firm in New York, New York. A nationally ranked lawyer with many years of total legal experience, Ms. Cohen has achieved remarkable success assisting and guiding clients throughout the greater New York City metro with all of their important and pressing family law challenges, including divorce, child custody and support, high-asset property division and other related matters.

Ms. Cohen has published several reference texts on family law, and she regularly creates analyses of matrimonial legal issues along with writing articles to educate and edify judges, other attorneys and the public on the state's family laws. 

She has also been featured in a variety of publications for her outstanding legal knowledge and abilities, and she regularly appears on various television and radio programs, as well as in print publications, where she offers in-depth legal commentary on a wide range of family law topics. Moreover, she has taught continuing legal education courses and served as panelist for the American Bar Association's Family Law Meetings. She has also served on judicial panels, and she has served as member of the President’s Advisory Council of Brooklyn Law School.

Honored for her outstanding professionalism, Ms. Cohen has earned an AV Preeminent peer review rating* from Martindale-Hubbell along with a Top 100 Lawyers designation for New York as well as perennial designation as among the Top 50 Women Attorneys of New York. She has also received numerous testimonials and referrals from her satisfied clients, who have included several high-profile, high net worth clients, such as Tom Brady, Gov. Andrew Cuomo and various celebrities and professional athletes.

Ms. Cohen obtained her Juris Doctor cum laude from Brooklyn Law School in 1974, and the New York State Bar Association admitted her to practice the following year. She is also admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court.

*AV®, AV Preeminent®, Martindale-Hubbell Distinguished and Martindale-Hubbell Notable are certification marks used under license in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell® is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rating™ fall into two categories – legal ability and general ethical standards.

Practice areas

Family Law

Focus areas

Alimony & Spousal Support, Child Support, Custody & Visitation, Dissolution, Divorce, Father's Rights, Marital Property, Mediation & Collaborative Law, Paternity, Prenuptial Agreements, Same Sex Family Law

First Admitted: 1975, New York

Professional Webpage: https://csklawny.com/harriet-newman-cohen

Bar/Professional Activity:
  • Executive Board, New York State Bar Association Family Law Section, 2024
  • Member, President’s Advisory Council, Brooklyn Law School, 2024
  • Committee on Matrimonial Law, New York City Bar Association
  • Past President, New York Women's Bar Association
  • Fellow, American Bar Foundation
  • Member, New York State Bar Association
  • Member, New York County Lawyers' Association
Verdicts/Settlements (Case Results):
  • L.M. v. M.A. 2023At issue: Was there or was there not a marriage? First Amendment issues regarding the testimony of a bishop and a priest (Ankit Kapoor and Harriet Newman Cohen), 2024
  • Mediation Committee of the New York State Supreme Court, County of New York, 2022
Videos:
Representative Clients:
  • Tom Brady
  • Laurence Fishburne
  • Former wife of Howard Stern
  • Linda Lavin
  • Governor Andrew Cuomo
  • The former wives of Harvey Weinstein and Bob Weinstein
  • Paul George (NBA star)
Special Licenses/Certifications:
  • Mediation Committee of the New York State Supreme Court, County of New York, 2024
Pro bono/Community Service:
  • Child Support Commission of the State of New York
  • Foster Care Commission of the City of New York
Honors/Awards:
  • Top Lists New York - Metro Super Lawyers, Super Lawyers, 2024
  • Top 100 New York: 2010-2023, Super Lawyers
  • Top 50 Women Attorneys New York: 2009-2023, Super Lawyers
  • Peer Rated for Highest Level of Professional Practice, Martindale - Avvo, 2024
  • Highest rating for many years, AV Preeminent Rated 5.0, Martindale Hubbell, 2024
  • Selected as one of NYC's top 100 attorneys for many years, Top 100 Attorneys, New York Metro Super Lawyers, 2023
Educational Background:
  • Barnard College, B.A.
  • Bryn Mawr College, M.A.
White Papers:
  • How do an artichoke jar, a turkey baster and a broken agreement become “The Case of a Lifetime,” for a successful attorney who was selected for the Crain’s list of New York’s Notable Women in law in 2023? Read Harriet Newman Cohen’s essay in Legal Briefs: The Ups and Downs of Life in the Law, edited by Roger M. Witten, to be published April 30 by Prospecta Press, to learn how it can be challenging to expand the definition of family when a court case is involved. “Being a parent is a legal status, subject to interpretation by each state’s laws,” writes Cohen. This is resonant today in far too many ways. How do an artichoke jar, a turkey baster and a broken agreement become “The Case of a Lifetime,” for a successful attorney who was selected for the Crain’s list of New York’s Notable Women in law in 2023? Read Harriet Newman Cohen’s essay in Legal Briefs: The Ups and Downs of Life in the Law, edited by Roger M. Witten, to be published April 30 by Prospecta Press, to learn how it can be challenging to expand the definition of family when a court case is involved. “Being a parent is a legal status, subject to interpretation by each state’s laws,” writes Cohen. This is resonant today in far too many ways. Legal Briefs: The Ups and Downs of Life in the Law (2024) Twenty top lawyers write engaging “behind the scenes” dramatic stories of their most fascinating cases, including a chapter by Harriet Newman Cohen about a landmark case addressing the rights of same-sex parental custody issues., Legal Briefs: The Ups and Downs of Life in the Law, Legal, 2024
  • Oprah Daily The Wisdom Corner: Interview with Celebrity Divorce Lawyer Harriet Newman Cohen by McKenzie Jean-Philippe April 13, 2021, Oprah Daily - The Wisdom Corner with Harriet Newman Cohen, Law, Divorce, Custody, Attorney For The Child, Matrimonial, Complex Divorce, 2021
  • New York Lifestyles Magazine My New York Story: Harriet Cohen, Still on Top by Brian Aker  "I have no intention of ever retiring; I am so good at this," exclaims Harriet Newman Cohen. As a successful New York attorney with more than four decades of experience in high-profile family law cases, Cohen has earned the right to more than a bit of bravado., Harriet Cohen, Still on Top, Law, Divorce, Custody, Attorney For The Child, Matrimonial, Complex Divorce, 2022
Scholarly Lectures/Writings:
  • Although the pandemic is, relatively speaking, in our rearview mirror, itsinfluence over the law remains ever-present. With that backdrop, HarrietNewman Cohen took a look at changes in the New York notarial laws and theirreach in the field of family law. I began writing my memoir in 2018, which is now with my agent. Thepractice was so different when I started to write, it seems almostunrecognizable. Paper drafts were piled high on the windowsills.Adversaries berated each other loudly on the telephone. The stress theseinteractions induced was palpable. And then came the pandemic. Zoom arrived. The windowsill piles disappeared. The offices becamevirtually paperless. Fax machines became obsolete. Phones stoppedringing—replaced by zoom meetings—and documents began to speakfor themselves: Redline v. Redline. No more yelling. Virtual meetings andvirtual court appearances. Midnight NYSCEF filings. The possibility ofautomatic service, except to commence a matrimonial action. Lawyerscould breathe again. More productivity. An amazing new world. Necessity being the mother of invention, some formalities had to bedropped or varied in the face of the pandemic. In particular, notarization.Emergency statutes were enacted. Employees began to work remotelyand grew to like it. Virtual and remote arrangements, previously unheardof, became the norm. And then the pandemic was over. And some of the pandemic normsbecame the new norms. For example, in October 2023, it was decidedthat, as of Jan. 1, 2024, lay people could henceforth affirm, on penalties ofperjury, that their statements were true. CPLR §2106 (2024). Theexpense and inconvenience of finding a notary was eliminated. Zoomwitnessed signatures became the norm as a much more user-friendly approach was ushered in. The language had to be precise. An unintendedbut welcome byproduct of the need to conduct business whenquarantine and lock-down were obviating face to face meetings. The newpost-pandemic world. Although the pandemic is, relatively speaking, in our rearview mirror, itsinfluence over the law remains ever-present. With that backdrop, I tooka look at changes in the New York notarial laws and their reach in thefield of family law. The New York Notary Law: 19 NYCRR 182The regulations promulgated by the New York Secretary of State, 19NYCRR 182, i.e., the Notary Public License Law, now incorporateamendments from 2022 and 2023 to the notarial law provisions of NewYork’s Executive Law. The amendments, effective Jan. 25, 2023, mostnotably authorize New York notaries public to notarize sworndocuments online remotely. This is a sea change to a vetting andauthorization process that goes back to the 1600’s—in the colonies.Notarization, except during the pandemic, always had to be face to face,failing which there were dire consequences for the notary, for the public,and for any attorneys who may have suborned perjury.For the public, these amendments have been a gift. For the notaries, notso much. Their whole practice has been upended—it is no longerbusiness as usual, and, to make matters worse, the notary must recordthe method they use to confirm the identity of the signatory for each actand keep their notarization records for 10 years. These new and onerousregulations have been the subject of criticism. See NYCBA Report on theNew York Notary Law (2023). Before the passage of the amended CPLR §2106, only licensed attorneys,physicians, osteopaths and dentists were permitted to utilize thestreamlined process of submitting affirmations instead of having to findnotaries public to witness their sworn signatures on affidavits. All otherindividuals were burdened with obtaining notarizations from stateappointed officials who witnessed important document signings and verified signers’ identities to help deter fraud. Today, the public can affirm on penalties of perjury that what they are signing is true except in certain delineated situations. Even affidavits of service that commence lawsuits and are so necessary to prevent fraud have been transformed into  affirmations of service. Lawyers will recall their law professors introducing them to the figure ofspeech, “sewer service,” to describe the heinous act, most particularlyconnected with debt collectors, of intentionally failing to serve thedefendant while pretending otherwise. Such misconduct led to a spike indefault judgments in consumer credit cases in New York. “They threwthe summons into the sewer,” the professors would intone. The swornaffidavit of service in front of a notary public was intended to curtail suchpractices. Affirmations: CPLR §2106Effective as of Jan. 1, 2024, CPLR §2106 provides as follows:The statement of any person wherever made, subscribed and affirmed bythat person to be true under the penalties of perjury, may be used in anaction in New York in lieu of and with the same force and effect as anaffidavit. Such affirmation shall be in substantially the following form:I affirm this ___ day of ______, ____, under the penalties of perjury under thelaws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that theforegoing is true, and I understand that this document may be filed in anaction or proceeding in a court of law.(Signature) The relaxed rule even reaches outside of the United States, Puerto Rico,the Virgin Islands, or any territory subject to United States jurisdiction,where the affirmation that must be used is as follows: I affirm this ___ day of ______, ____, under the penalties of perjury under thelaws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that I amphysically located outside the geographic boundaries of the United States,Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insularpossession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, that theforegoing is true, and I understand that this document may be filed in anaction or proceeding in a court of law.(Signature) CPLR §2106(b). The language, “I affirm…under the penalties of perjury under the laws ofNew York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoingis true, and I understand that this document may be filed in an action orproceeding in a court of law…” is the warning that is being relied upon todeliver the message that there will be serious consequences for perjury.Application of 19 NYCRR 182 and CPLR §2106 toMatrimonial Documents Does the same relaxation apply in matrimonial actions and, if so, arethere any exceptions? The answer is yes, and yes. Motions can now to besubmitted based on client affirmations instead of notarized affidavits, “inlieu of and with the same force and effect as an affidavit.” However, inorder for the affirmation to substitute effectively for the affidavit, thelanguage employed must be precise. Do not deviate even though the statute reads, “[s]uch affirmation shall be in substantially the followingform” (emphasis added). Pleadings must be verified, and there is no relaxation of the prepandemic rules there. CPLR §3020. A verification is a statement under oath that the pleading is true to the knowledge of the deponent, except asto matters alleged information and belief, and that as to those mattersthe deponent believes it to be true. This is the language that must beemployed. There are policy reasons for not changing the verificationrequirements. It’s all about gravitas. The transformation of affidavits into affirmations and the relaxation ofnotarizations also do not apply to DRL §236(B)(3) agreements. DRL§236(B)(3) provides that “[a]n agreement by the parties, made before orduring the marriage, shall be valid and enforceable in a matrimonialaction if such agreement is in writing, subscribed by the parties, andacknowledged or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to berecorded.” DRL §236(B)(3) marital agreements encompass such important personalrights and family interests that acknowledgements of the agreementmust remain formal to a “T” in order to underscore the weighty personalchoices that are made in these agreements, such as to relinquishsignificant property or inheritance rights, or resolve important issuesconcerning child custody, education and care. “In the manner of a deed.”That is the standard by which the validity of the acknowledgement of aDRL §236(B)(3) agreement is judged. “To have and to hold.” The boilerplate found on deeds back to historiccolonial days and earlier that emphasized that rights to valuable landwere being transferred. Anybody handling a real estate transfer knowsthat we must not deviate from the traditional acknowledgment form.DRL §236(B)(3) agreements are no less formidable. The formalities are intended to impress upon the signatories theconsequences of the document that is being executed. That is the importof the holding of the Court of Appeals, in Matisoff v. Dobi, 90 N.Y.2d 127(N.Y. 1997), which ruled that absent the formality that permits a deed tobe recorded, DRL §236(B)(3) agreements will be deemed invalid. Thatadmonition applies to prenuptial agreements, postnuptial agreements,and separation agreements—agreements that are at the heart ofmatrimonial law. Since cohabitation agreements are not covered byArticle 13 Section 236 of the Domestic Relations Law, these formalitiesdo not apply to them. Would the post-pandemic winds of change affect the matrimonialrelated agreements within the ambit of Matisoff v. Dobi? Anderson v. Anderson, 37 N.Y.3d 444 (N.Y. 2021), answers the question with aresounding, “No.” And don’t forget that when DRL §236(B)(3)agreements are signed outside of New York, they shall only be treated asif signed within New York “if accompanied by such certificate orcertificates as would be required to entitle a deed acknowledged withoutthe state to be recorded within the state if such deed had beenacknowledged before the officer who administered the oath oraffirmation… (CPLR §2309). In Anderson, the parties signed a postnuptial agreement—a DRL §236(B)(3) agreement—a month after their wedding, and while the wife’ssignature was acknowledged simultaneously with her signing, thehusband’s signature was not acknowledged until seven years later, justbefore he filed for divorce. Citing Matisoff v. Dobi with approval, theCourt of Appeals removed any doubt but that such relaxations would notapply to DRL § 236(B)(3) agreements. Not only must the formalitiesof Matisoff v. Dobi be adhered to, but the signature has to have beenacknowledged contemporaneously—i.e., within a reasonable time of thesigning. Quoting Matisoff, the Anderson court stated, “Given the purpose of thesigning and acknowledgment requirements, the DRL’s ‘obvious spirit andintent’ must be understood to require an acknowledgement that isreasonably close temporally to the period when the signing parties haveconsidered the consequences of the nuptial agreement and decided to bebound by its terms.” Anderson at 452. Consequently, the Anderson court held that the parties’ postnuptialagreement was invalid and unenforceable because the acknowledgmentfailed to comply with the DRL §236(B)(3) requirements. Strictconstruction remains the lesson of the day. In 2023, in Khan v. Hasan, 219 A.D.3d 1420 (2d Dep’t 2023), the SecondDepartment affirmed the Nassau County Supreme Court’s determinationthat the parties’ Islamic marriage agreement was unenforceable becauseit did not comply with the statutory acknowledgment requirements.In Khan, the parties’ religious certificate of marriage was signed but notacknowledged by two witnesses and an Imam. The agreement providedthat in the event of divorce, the husband would pay to the wife a lumpsum of $50,000. The Supreme Court set aside the agreement on thehusband’s motion. The Second Department affirmed on the grounds thatthe Supreme Court was correct in its determination that the agreement’slack of proper acknowledgment rendered it unenforceable.Notably, though, a less stringent standard was applied to a DRL§236(B)(3) agreement during the pandemic. In Ryerson v. Ryerson, 2023 Westlaw 7201028 (3rd Dept. Nov. 2, 2023),at a time when out of necessity the use of audio-visual technology for theremote execution of notarial acts required by state law was authorized(see Executive Order [A. Cuomo] No. 202.7 [9 NYCRR 8.202.7]), theparties met at the wife’s house to execute the separation agreement andcontacted a notary public via video conference. After executing theagreement, the parties conveyed to the notary that they had no access toa scanner or facsimile machine to electronically transmit the documentto the notary, as required by Executive Order No. 202.7. The notaryinstructed the wife to mail the agreement back to him, and the husbanddid not object to this proposed solution. A few days later, the notaryreceived the agreement in the mail, reviewed it, acknowledged theparties’ signatures and mailed a copy of the agreement to each of them.The husband’s subsequent attempt to invalidate and hold the agreementunenforceable as not having been signed in precise compliance withExecutive Order No. 202.7 based on the fact that the parties mailed thedocument to the notary rather than scanning and faxing it failed. Theminor variation in which the agreement was sent to the notary was notheld to have deprived the notary of authority, or to have tainted thenotarial process, there being no substantive defect in theacknowledgment itself. Now that the pandemic is over, will the same ruleof reason apply? As an aside, although CPLR §2104 stipulations can and do deal withserious matrimonial and family court matters, even the transfer ofproperty rights and custody issues, they do not require the formality ofDRL §236(B)(3) agreements. CPLR §2104 provides that “[a]n agreementbetween parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action,other than one made between counsel in open court, is not binding upona party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney orreduced to the form of an order and entered.” On June 18, 2024, in a CPLR §2104 stipulation case, the SecondDepartment treated the matter with the gravitas the subject matterrequired and remitted the matter to the Family Court for a hearing and anew determination where a custody order awarding physical custody tothe father based on a CPLR §2104 stipulation did not contain all of thematerial terms and a manifestation of mutual consent, the terms of thesettlement were not placed on the record, and there was no writingsubscribed by the parties. The mother’s averral that she did not consentto the terms of the custody order had been of no avail to her below. Contrast that with J.G. v. L.G., 2024 Slip Op 50659(U) (Sup. Ct.,Westchester County, June 3, 2024), where the court found that an emailexchange between lawyers concerning a proposed settlement affectingthe disposition of a marital residence constituted a CPLR § 2104stipulation that the wife could not retract. The email exchange was heldto be sufficient to constitute a binding CPLR §2104 stipulation betweenthe parties, citing Matter of Philadelphia Insurance Indemnity v. Kendall,197 A.D.3d 75 (1st Dept. 2021). Suffice it to say that there is much more predictability in DRL §236(B)(3)agreement cases than those that come down under CPLR §2104.Practitioners, be wary. ConclusionNew York law has moved with the times and has relaxed certainformalities. But not all. Formalities are still required for pleadings andDRL § 236(B)(3) agreements. The policy reasons underlying these twodivergent paths are sound. It remains to be seen what the future willhold. Harriet Newman Cohen is a partner at Cohen Stine Kapoor, amatrimonial and family law firm. Rachel Rutstein, a law clerk at the firm,assisted in the preparation of the article.  , Author, New York Law Journal, Special Matrimonial Law Section ‘I Affirm. I Swear.’ The Pandemic Has Transformed NY’s Notarization Requirements—Or Has It?, New York Law Journal, Legal, 2024
  • Family law is statewide. The law may be different. Practices may be different. Procedures may be different. And, in the case of domestic relations law, procedure is substance, because the procedure can completely change your client's divorce and its consequences., Author, Divorce in NY, NJ, Connecticute and Massachusetts, New York Law Journal, Legal, 2023
  • The law must keep up with the advances in “Baby-Making Technology.”Public policy is a moving target., Author, Surrogacy - From Baby M to Today’s Baby-Making Technology, New York Law Journal, Law, Divorce, Custody, Attorney For The Child, Matrimonial, Complex Divorce, 2022
  • New York Law Journal Substituting Judgment: Beware, Attorney For the Child What happens when the AFC believes that the child’s wishes are contrary to the child’s best interests and finds himself/herself at a crossroads with the child? The AFC must then decide whether it is permissible to use substituted judgment. Harriet Newman Cohen and Ankit Kapoor July 24, 2021, Author, Substituting Judgment: Beware, Attorney for the Child, New York Law Journal, Legal, 2021
  • New York Times  Planning Divorce? Manage Your Divorce Expectations  Family Law Attorney Harriet Newman Cohen discusses what to expect  January 31, 2021 , Discussion with Experts in the Field, Planning Divorce? What to Expect, New York Times, Legal, 2021
  • Covid and Divorce, Interview, Manage Your Divorce Expectations, DNYUZ, Legal, 2021
  • https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/07/26/divorce-vs-death-pecuniary-rights-and-how-they-differ/, Author, Divorce vs. Death, NYLJ.com, Family Law, 2020
  • Super Lawyer New York Metro The Legal, the Illegal, and the Inadvisable: What to know about digital spying during a divorce Harriet Newman Cohen, October 9, 2020https://www.superlawyers.com/new-york-metro/article/what-to-know-about-digital-spying-during-a-divorce/369afa02-38fc-4b17-85ae-0d4ada8b4408.htmlhttps://www.superlawyers.com/new-york-metro/article/what-to-know-about-digital-spying-during-a-divorce/369afa02-38fc-4b17-85ae-0d4ada8b4408.html, What to Know About Digital Spying, Divorce, Matrimonial, Custody, Family Law, 2020
  • https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2020/07/24/surrogacy-agreements-approved-by-new-york-with-provisos/, Co Author, Surrogacy Agreements Approved by New York - With Provisos, New York Law Journal, Divorce, Custody, Family Law, Matrimonial, 2020
  • A Glimpse Into Client Fears in Domestic Relations Cases Harriet Newman Cohen authors chapter in Heidi K. Brown’s, Untangling Fear in Lawyering, 2019 American Bar Association, Author of Chapter, A Glimpse Into Client Fears in Domestic Relation Cases, American Bar Association, Heidi K. Brown, Divorce Custody Family Matrimonial Law, 2019
  • Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are set to wed in May 2018 — but they’re skipping a step many modern couples take to protect their finances in the case of divorce. According to the Daily Mail, Prince Harry and Markle aren’t signing a prenuptial agreement. In fact, Prince Harry’s older brother Prince William also didn’t sign a prenup before marrying Kate Middleton in 2011, Fox News reported. For the average American couple, this might be a dangerous choice. But for couples in the UK, it’s somewhat expected. Prenups were only introduced in the United Kingdom fairly recently — and they’re still not very popular. In a 2010 ruling, the Supreme Court held that “courts should give effect to a pre-nuptial agreement that is freely entered into by each party, with a full appreciation of its implications,” unless it would be unfair to the parties, according to a 2017 briefing paper from the House of Commons. Before that, prenups were not always enforceable in the UK. In fact, said Harriet Cohen, a partner at Cohen Stine Kapoor LLP, a family law firm in New York City, prenups were considered “non-romantic.” As for royal couples specifically, Cohen said Prince William and Prince Harry likely don’t have much property of their own that they’d be trying to protect in a divorce. As Business Insider’s Áine Cain reported, national treasures like the Crown Jewels or the Tower of London are part of the royal collection. The monarch holds them in trust for the nation. (Still, Cohen said the royal couple may have confidential non-disclosure agreements upon marrying that are not made public.) In the United States, prenups are handled differently by state. Cohen said that in New York, for example, a prenup is typically upheld. But assets that you inherit typically do not get divided in the event of a divorce.If you're not marrying into royalty, you should consider signing a prenupAll that said, a prenup still makes sense for many modern (non-royal) couples. As Business Insider previously reported, a prenup typically determines the fate of property and other assets that either person brings to the marriage, as well as the assets they’ve acquired together, upon divorce. It might sound unromantic, to plan for a relationship's demise, but in actuality, it's practical. Just because you've prepared for the worst doesn't mean the worst will happen — and if it does, you know your hard-earned assets aren't at risk. Terry Savage, coauthor of "The New Love Deal: Everything You Must Know Before Marrying, Moving In, Or Moving On!," wrote: “The point is to discuss and plan now, while you are most in love and most in tune with each other, not later, when you need to argue it out, and these become power issues as much as financial or social issues.” Savage herself went through a divorce, and found that in her own experience, "divorce was made easier by having an agreement that left no debate about finances," she wrote. Interestingly, wealthy couples in the US are starting to draft more creative prenups that address other issues besides finances. For example, as Business Insider’s Rachel Gillett reported, Jessica Biel and Justin Timberlake have an infidelity clause in their prenup: Biel will receive $500,000 if Timberlake cheats. If you’re already married and starting to panic, don’t: Some couples draft post-nuptial agreements instead, that are created after they're married. At the very least, you and your spouse should talk openly and honestly about money — before and after the wedding., Contributor, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Aren't Signing a Prenup, BUSINESS INSIDER, Legal, 2018
  • https://www.superlawyers.com/new-york-metro/article/the-second-life-of-harriet-cohen/ef73c7f2-1bec-4b82-a635-a882498e3327.html, The Second Life of Harriet Newman Cohen, New York Super Lawyers 2008 - Metro, Divorce, Family Law
  • New York Law Journal, July 27, 2015, N.Y.'s Proposed Maintenance Guidelines
  • New York Law Journal July 29, 2013, Automatic Orders' Prevent Wrongful Asset Transfers in Divorce Actions
  • New York Law Journal, July 28, 2014, Child Support Modifications Are Easier After 2010 Amendments
  • New York Law Journal, July 30, 2012, Unwrapping the 2012 'No Fault' Package” by Harriet Newman Cohen and Tim James
  • New York Law Journal. August 1, 2011, Marriage Equality Remains an Aspiration. Non-recognition statutes pose legal complications for same-sex unions
  • New York Law Journal Family Law, August 9, 2010, What's Equitable When Distributing Businesses, Enhanced Earning Capacity?
  • New York Law Journal, August 10, 2009, Downward Modification In A Troubled Economy
  • New York Law Journal, August 26, 2009, Needs of Children, Snapshot, Not Movie, Letter to the Editor
  • New York Law Journal, July 30, 2007, The Alienated Child
  • New York Law Journal, July 28, 2008, Egregious To a Fault
  • New York Law Journal, August 7, 2006, To Have or Have Not (a Prenuptial Agreement)?
  • New York Law Journal, June 6, 2005, When Custody is Truly Contested, Who Decides Best Interests?
  • New York State Law Reporting Bureau January 3, 2013, Bonnie Rabin and Martha Cohen Stine make law in Appellate Division, First Department in Nederlander v. Nederlander, 102 A.D. 3d 416 (2013), case of first impression involving mortgages that matured during pendency of divorce action
  • New York Law Journal, June 7, 2004, Equating 'Best' With 'Only' in Interstate Custody Cases Under the UCCJEA
  • New York Law Journal, July 14, 2003, Limiting Discovery in Custody Cases
  • New York Law Journal, July 15, 2002, Is 'Braiman' Still Vital After 24 Years?
  • The Divorce Book for Men and Women: A Step-By-Step Guide to Gaining Your Freedom Without Losing Everything Else, Avon Publishers, New York City, July 1994, Divorce Book for Men and Women: A Step-By-Step Guide to Gaining Your Freedom Without Losing Everything Else, Divorce Law
  • Co-author, Valuation of Property in Marital Dissolutions, XXIII ABA Fam. L.Q.2, Summer 1989, Co-Author, Valuation of Property in Marital Dissolutions, XXIII ABA Fam. L.Q.2
  • Harriet Cohen writes regular analyses and articles for the edification of bench, bar and lay persons, including a yearly article on matrimonial and family law for the New York Law Journal special Matrimonial Section., Yearly articles on matrimonial and family law for the New York Law Journal special Matrimonial Section.
  • JMHS Alumni News, Harriet Newman Cohen' 49: From Latin to Family Law
  • The Magazine of Brooklyn Law School, Harriet Cohen '74 The Marriage Broker
  • Member and Editor, Brooklyn Law School Law Review, 1972-1974, Law Review Member and Editor, 1972-1974, Brooklyn Law School
  • Panelist, Annual ABA Family Law Meetings, ABA Family Law Panelist
  • Harriet Cohen, who has taught CLE courses, has been a panelist at annual ABA Family Law Meetings as well as a featured speaker for other professional and bar associations and groups., Professional and Bar Associations and Organizations, Panelist and Featured Speaker
Other Outstanding Achievements:
Industry Groups:
  • Appeals
  • Custody
  • Divorce
  • High Net Worth Family Law Cases
  • Matrimonial Law
  • Postnuptials
  • Prenuptials

Office location for Harriet Newman Cohen

11 Times Square
10th Floor
New York, NY 10036

Phone: 212-512-0801

Selections

19 Years Super Lawyers
  • Super Lawyers: 2006 - 2024

Top Lists

Top 50: Women New York — Metro Super Lawyers: 2009 - 2024
Top 100: New York — Metro Super Lawyers: 2010, 2012 - 2022

Articles about Harriet Newman Cohen by Super Lawyers

The Second Life of Harriet Cohen

Additional sources of information about Harriet Newman Cohen

Find me online

Attorney resources for Harriet Newman Cohen

Download badge
Update profile
Order online

Contact me

Required fields are marked with an asterisk (*).

To: Harriet Newman Cohen Super Lawyers: Potential Client Inquiry

The information contained in this web site is intended to convey general information. It should not be construed as legal advice or opinion. It is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship. The use of the internet or this contact form for communication is not necessarily a secure environment. Contacting a lawyer or law firm email through this service will not create an attorney-client relationship, and information will not necessarily be treated as privileged or confidential.

Find top lawyerswith confidence

The Super Lawyers patented selection process is peer influenced and research driven, selecting the top 5% of attorneys to the Super Lawyers lists each year. We know lawyers and make it easy to connect with them.

Page Generated: 0.130450963974 sec