Kassenoff v. Kassenoff

• Docket Number: 2021–06235,Index No. 58217/19
• Decision Date: 15 February 2023
• Citation: 213 A.D.3d 822,183 N.Y.S.3d 533
• Parties: Allan KASSENOFF, respondent, v. Catherine KASSENOFF, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

213 A.D.3d 822
183 N.Y.S.3d 533

Allan KASSENOFF, respondent,
v.
Catherine KASSENOFF, appellant.

2021–06235
Index No. 58217/19

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

Submitted—October 21, 2022
February 15, 2023

183 N.Y.S.3d 534

Catherine Kassenoff, New Rochelle, NY, appellant pro se.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., PAUL WOOTEN, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, LILLIAN WAN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

213 A.D.3d 822

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nancy Quinn Koba, J.), dated August 10, 2021. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendant's motion to vacate an order of the same court dated May 25, 2021, prohibiting the defendant from communicating with any employee of the plaintiff's employer about the plaintiff, this action, the facts and circumstances of the parties’ marriage prior to the commencement of this action, or the parties’ children, and prohibiting both parties from

183 N.Y.S.3d 535

criticizing, denigrating, or disparaging the other on any form of social media.

ORDERED that the order dated August 10, 2021, is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that

213 A.D.3d 823

branch of the defendant's motion which was to vacate so much of the order dated May 25, 2021, as prohibited the defendant from communicating with any employee of the plaintiff's employer about the parties’ children, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order dated August 10, 2021, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

On February 24, 2020, the parties to this action for a divorce and ancillary relief, who are the parents of three children, appeared for a conference to discuss, among other things, certain communications between the defendant and the plaintiff's employer. During the conference, the plaintiff's attorney proposed language for an order directing that "neither party shall contact the other party's employer, colleagues at work, anyone associated with their employment for any purposes whatsoever, and ... they shall not disparage, embarrass, or seek to interfere with that party's employment." The defendant's attorney objected to the proposed language, noting that the plaintiff's employer was also the defendant's former employer, and contended that the...