Kaufman v. Kaufman

Kaufman v Kaufman (2020 NY Slip Op 05730)

Kaufman v Kaufman
2020 NY Slip Op 05730
Decided on October 14, 2020
Appellate Division, Second 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 on October 14, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

(Index No. 4893/11)

[*1]Kim A. Kaufman, respondent,v

Glenn B. Kaufman, appellant.

Lieberman & LeBovit, Yorktown Heights, NY (Mitchell P. Lieberman and Rottenstreich & Ettinger, LLP of counsel), for appellant.

Kramer Kozek LLP, White Plains, NY (Deborah Sherman of counsel), for respondent.


In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lawrence H. Ecker, J.), dated July 7, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to reargue her prior motion for an award of interim counsel fees, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated April 4, 2014, and, upon reargument, in effect, vacated that portion of the order dated April 4, 2014, and thereupon granted the plaintiff’s prior motion for an award of interim counsel fees to the extent of awarding her the sum of $750,000.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with entry of the judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review on the related appeal and cross appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1]; Kaufman v Kaufman, _____ AD3d _____ [Appellate Division Docket No. 2016-07969; decided herewith]).

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on NO-SCAM.com, it is strongly advised to avoid Kaufman v. Kaufman in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from Kaufman v. Kaufman. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike No-Scam.com, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
Kaufman v. Kaufman is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.
The above review and comments against Kaufman v. Kaufman were submitted by NO-SCAM.com user(s) and have been published as-is. NO-SCAM.com does not edit, alter or remove content published by it’s users. There’s no amount of money a business can pay to manipulate their reviews or complaints and NO-SCAM.com will NOT entertain any request to remove the review on Kaufman v. Kaufman at any cost whatsoever.