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 - 2025

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 City. A nationally ranked lawyer with many years of legal experience, Ms. Cohen has achieved remarkable success assisting and guiding clients throughout the greater New York metro area with all of their important and pressing family law challenges, including divorce, child custody and support, high-asset property division, complex financial litigation and other family law related matters.

Ms. Cohen, one of the authors of the equitable distribution law, has published several reference texts on family law, and she regularly creates analyses of and writes articles about matrimonial legal issues to educate and edify other attorneys and the public on New York State's family laws. She is well known and highly respected by bench and bar. Ms. Cohen has been appointed by the court to represent children in contested family law matters and as a neutral evaluator to assist the court in bringing highly-contested matters to settlement. 

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

  • 100% Family Law

First Admitted: 1975, New York

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

Bar / Professional Activity

  • Matrimonial Advisory Committee, New York County, 2025
  • Executive Board, New York State Bar Association Family Law Section, 2025
  • Member, President’s Advisory Council, Brooklyn Law School, 2025
  • Past President, New York Women's Bar Association
  • Committee on Matrimonial Law, New York City Bar Association
  • Fellow, American Bar Foundation
  • Member, New York State Bar Association
  • Member, New York County Lawyers' Association

Verdicts / Settlements (Case Results)

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

  • Matrimonial Advisory Committee, New York Courts, 2025
  • Assigned Counsel Plan (18B) - Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, 2025
  • Certified Mediator, 2025
  • 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
  • Board of Directors, The Lotos Club, 2025
  • Board of Directors, Stecher-Horowitz Foundation, 2025

Educational Background

  • Barnard College, B.A.
  • Bryn Mawr College, M.A.

White Papers

Scholarly Lectures / Writings

  • Although the pandemic is, relatively speaking, in our rearview mirror, its influence over the law remains ever-present. With that backdrop, Harriet Newman Cohen took a look at changes in the New York notarial laws and their reach in the field of family law. I began writing my memoir in 2018, which is now with my agent. The practice was so different when I started to write, it seems almost unrecognizable. Paper drafts were piled high on the windowsills. Adversaries berated each other loudly on the telephone. The stress these interactions induced was palpable. And then came the pandemic. Zoom arrived. The windowsill piles disappeared. The offices became virtually paperless. Fax machines became obsolete. Phones stopped ringing—replaced by zoom meetings—and documents began to speak for themselves: Redline v. Redline. No more yelling. Virtual meetings and virtual court appearances. Midnight NYSCEF filings. The possibility of automatic service, except to commence a matrimonial action. Lawyers could 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 remotely and grew to like it. Virtual and remote arrangements, previously unheard of, became the norm. And then the pandemic was over. And some of the pandemic norms became the new norms. For example, in October 2023, it was decided that, as of Jan. 1, 2024, lay people could henceforth affirm, on penalties of perjury, that their statements were true. CPLR §2106 (2024). The expense and inconvenience of finding a notary was eliminated. Zoom witnessed signatures became the norm as a much more user-friendly approach was ushered in. The language had to be precise. An unintended but welcome byproduct of the need to conduct business when quarantine and lock-down were obviating face to face meetings. The new post-pandemic world. Although the pandemic is, relatively speaking, in our rearview mirror, its influence over the law remains ever-present. With that backdrop, I took a look at changes in the New York notarial laws and their reach in the field 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 incorporate amendments from 2022 and 2023 to the notarial law provisions of New York’s Executive Law. The amendments, effective Jan. 25, 2023, most notably authorize New York notaries public to notarize sworn documents online remotely. This is a sea change to a vetting and authorization 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, not so much. Their whole practice has been upended—it is no longer business as usual, and, to make matters worse, the notary must record the method they use to confirm the identity of the signatory for each act and keep their notarization records for 10 years. These new and onerous regulations have been the subject of criticism. See NYCBA Report on the New York Notary Law (2023). Before the passage of the amended CPLR §2106, only licensed attorneys, physicians, osteopaths and dentists were permitted to utilize the streamlined process of submitting affirmations instead of having to find notaries public to witness their sworn signatures on affidavits. All other individuals were burdened with obtaining notarizations from state appointed 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 of speech, “sewer service,” to describe the heinous act, most particularly connected with debt collectors, of intentionally failing to serve the defendant while pretending otherwise. Such misconduct led to a spike in default judgments in consumer credit cases in New York. “They threw the summons into the sewer,” the professors would intone. The sworn affidavit of service in front of a notary public was intended to curtail such practices. Affirmations: CPLR §2106Effective as of Jan. 1, 2024, CPLR §2106 provides as follows: The statement of any person wherever made, subscribed and affirmed by that person to be true under the penalties of perjury, may be used in an action in New York in lieu of and with the same force and effect as an affidavit. Such affirmation shall be in substantially the following form:  I affirm this ___ day of ______, ____, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that this document may be filed in an action 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 the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that I am physically located outside the geographic boundaries of the United States, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law.(Signature) CPLR §2106(b). The language, “I affirm…under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law…” is the warning that is being relied upon to deliver the message that there will be serious consequences for perjury. Application of 19 NYCRR 182 and CPLR §2106 to Matrimonial Documents Does the same relaxation apply in matrimonial actions and, if so, are there any exceptions? The answer is yes, and yes. Motions can now to be submitted based on client affirmations instead of notarized affidavits, “in lieu of and with the same force and effect as an affidavit.” However, in order for the affirmation to substitute effectively for the affidavit, the language employed must be precise. Do not deviate even though the statute reads, “[s]uch affirmation shall be in substantially the following form” (emphasis added). Pleadings must be verified, and there is no relaxation of the pre-pandemic rules there. CPLR §3020. A verification is a statement under oath that the pleading is true to the knowledge of the deponent, except as to matters alleged information and belief, and that as to those matters the deponent believes it to be true. This is the language that must be employed. There are policy reasons for not changing the verification requirements. It’s all about gravitas. The transformation of affidavits into affirmations and the relaxation of notarizations also do not apply to DRL §236(B)(3) agreements. DRL§236(B)(3) provides that “[a]n agreement by the parties, made before or during the marriage, shall be valid and enforceable in a matrimonial action if such agreement is in writing, subscribed by the parties, and acknowledged or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to be recorded.” DRL §236(B)(3) marital agreements encompass such important personal rights and family interests that acknowledgements of the agreement must remain formal to a “T” in order to underscore the weighty personal choices that are made in these agreements, such as to relinquish significant property or inheritance rights, or resolve important issues concerning child custody, education and care. “In the manner of a deed. ”That is the standard by which the validity of the acknowledgement of a DRL §236(B)(3) agreement is judged. “To have and to hold.” The boilerplate found on deeds back to historic colonial days and earlier that emphasized that rights to valuable land were being transferred. Anybody handling a real estate transfer knows that 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 the consequences of the document that is being executed. That is the import of 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 to be recorded, DRL §236(B)(3) agreements will be deemed invalid. That admonition applies to prenuptial agreements, postnuptial agreements, and separation agreements—agreements that are at the heart of matrimonial law. Since cohabitation agreements are not covered by Article 13 Section 236 of the Domestic Relations Law, these formalities do not apply to them. Would the post-pandemic winds of change affect the matrimonial related agreements within the ambit of Matisoff v. Dobi? Anderson v. Anderson, 37 N.Y.3d 444 (N.Y. 2021), answers the question with a resounding, “No.” And don’t forget that when DRL §236(B)(3)agreements are signed outside of New York, they shall only be treated as if signed within New York “if accompanied by such certificate or certificates as would be required to entitle a deed acknowledged without the state to be recorded within the state if such deed had been acknowledged before the officer who administered the oath or affirmation… (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's signature was acknowledged simultaneously with her signing, the husband's signature was not acknowledged until seven years later, just before he filed for divorce. Citing Matisoff v. Dobi with approval, the Court of Appeals removed any doubt but that such relaxations would not apply to DRL § 236(B)(3) agreements. Not only must the formalities of Matisoff v. Dobi be adhered to, but the signature has to have been acknowledged contemporaneously—i.e., within a reasonable time of the signing. Quoting Matisoff, the Anderson court stated, “Given the purpose of the signing and acknowledgment requirements, the DRL’s ‘obvious spirit and intent’ must be understood to require an acknowledgement that is reasonably close temporally to the period when the signing parties have considered the consequences of the nuptial agreement and decided to be bound by its terms.” Anderson at 452. Consequently, the Anderson court held that the parties’ postnuptialagreement was invalid and unenforceable because the acknowledgment failed to comply with the DRL §236(B)(3) requirements. Strict construction 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 determination that the parties’ Islamic marriage agreement was unenforceable because it did not comply with the statutory acknowledgment requirements. In Khan, the parties’ religious certificate of marriage was signed but not acknowledged by two witnesses and an Imam. The agreement provided that 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 the husband’s motion. The Second Department affirmed on the grounds that the Supreme Court was correct in its determination that the agreement’s lack 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 the remote execution of notarial acts required by state law was authorized(see Executive Order [A. Cuomo] No. 202.7 [9 NYCRR 8.202.7]), the parties met at the wife’s house to execute the separation agreement and contacted a notary public via video conference. After executing the agreement, the parties conveyed to the notary that they had no access toa scanner or facsimile machine to electronically transmit the document to the notary, as required by Executive Order No. 202.7. The notary instructed the wife to mail the agreement back to him, and the husband did not object to this proposed solution. A few days later, the notary received the agreement in the mail, reviewed it, acknowledged the parties’ signatures and mailed a copy of the agreement to each of them. The husband’s subsequent attempt to invalidate and hold the agreement unenforceable as not having been signed in precise compliance with Executive Order No. 202.7 based on the fact that the parties mailed the document to the notary rather than scanning and faxing it failed. The minor variation in which the agreement was sent to the notary was not held to have deprived the notary of authority, or to have tainted the notarial process, there being no substantive defect in the acknowledgment itself. Now that the pandemic is over, will the same rule of reason apply? As an aside, although CPLR §2104 stipulations can and do deal with serious matrimonial and family court matters, even the transfer of property rights and custody issues, they do not require the formality of DRL §236(B)(3) agreements. CPLR §2104 provides that “[a]n agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action, other than one made between counsel in open court, is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney or reduced to the form of an order and entered.” On June 18, 2024, in a CPLR §2104 stipulation case, the Second Department treated the matter with the gravitas the subject matter required and remitted the matter to the Family Court for a hearing and anew determination where a custody order awarding physical custody to the father based on a CPLR §2104 stipulation did not contain all of the material terms and a manifestation of mutual consent, the terms of the settlement were not placed on the record, and there was no writing subscribed by the parties. The mother’s averral that she did not consent to 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 email exchange between lawyers concerning a proposed settlement affecting the disposition of a marital residence constituted a CPLR § 2104stipulation that the wife could not retract. The email exchange was held to be sufficient to constitute a binding CPLR §2104 stipulation between the 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. Conclusion New York law has moved with the times and has relaxed certain formalities. But not all. Formalities are still required for pleadings and DRL § 236(B)(3) agreements. The policy reasons underlying these two divergent paths are sound. It remains to be seen what the future will hold. Harriet Newman Cohen is a partner at Cohen Stine Kapoor, a matrimonial 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, Connecticut 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

Honors

  • Highest Rating Possible for Ethical Conduct and Legal Knowledge Peer Rated for Highest Level of Professional Practice, AV Preeminent Rated 5.0, Martindale Hubbell, 2025
  • Top 50 Women Attorneys New York , Top 50 Women Attorneys, Super Lawyers
  • Top 100 New York: 2010-2023, Top 100 Attorneys in New York, Super Lawyers
  • Top Lists New York - Metro Super Lawyers, Super Lawyers, Super Lawyers

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

20 Years Super Lawyers
  • Super Lawyers: 2006 - 2025

Top Lists

Top 50: Women New York — Metro Super Lawyers: 2009 - 2025
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

By submitting this form you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

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: 0.1401469707489 sec