Levoritz Law Firm - Manhattan Divorce Attorney

Need a lawyer for something like this?

Tell us what happened and we’ll connect you with a law firm that handles cases like yours, fast. Free, no obligation.

Our chat is not a message to the firm profiled here. Awesome Attorneys is independent and not a law firm; we pass your details on only with your permission.

Attorney Advertising. This profile is independent editorial content produced by Awesome Attorneys and is not a paid placement. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice or creates an attorney-client relationship. See our Methodology and Publisher Disclosure below.

At a Glance

Founded by	Yonatan Levoritz (per the firm)
Focus	Divorce and family law, with an emphasis on high-net-worth and high-conflict matters (per the firm)
Office	200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10281 (Financial District, Manhattan)
Signature results	Perry v. McMahan — $163,500 spousal maintenance arrears judgment upheld on appeal (per the firm); Wright v. Burke — appellate reversal preserving a mother’s sole custody and blocking a forced relocation (per the firm)
Distinctive edge	Litigates a meaningful share of its matters through to the Appellate Division rather than settling as a default strategy
Fee model	Not published on the firm’s site; one client review on the firm’s own testimonials page notes the firm’s “services come with a significant cost”
Known for	High-asset Manhattan divorce, contested custody and relocation disputes, and appellate matrimonial work (per the firm)

Origin and Background

Most divorce firms advertise settlements; the Levoritz Law Firm’s own case-results page instead leads with a list of named appellate decisions. Founding attorney Yonatan Levoritz built the Manhattan firm, now headquartered at 200 Vesey Street in the Financial District, around matters that went past a negotiating table and into New York’s appellate courts — a $163,500 spousal maintenance arrears judgment in Perry v. McMahan, and a reversal in Wright v. Burke that blocked a court-ordered relocation and preserved a mother’s sole custody. The firm’s physical Manhattan office was confirmed against its own site.

What Makes This Firm Structurally Different

The firm is not built primarily around uncontested, paperwork-driven divorces; per its own published case list, a substantial share of its named results involve appellate practice — Khlevner v. Khlevner (overturning a lower court’s order of protection, visitation schedule, and settlement agreement) and Kaprov v. Stalinsky (upholding a Florida apartment as marital property and defending an eleven-year maintenance award) among them. That appellate track record, rather than volume intake, is the firm’s clearest differentiator from general-practice Manhattan divorce shops.

Practice Areas

Contested and uncontested divorce
High-net-worth and high-asset divorce
Child custody, visitation, and relocation disputes
Spousal support (maintenance) litigation and modification
Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements
Appeals of family court and matrimonial rulings
Mediation and collaborative divorce

Track Record

Per the firm’s own published case-results page, named outcomes include: Perry v. McMahan, a $163,500 judgment for spousal maintenance arrears upheld by the appellate court; Wright v. Burke, an appellate reversal of a lower court’s relocation order that preserved the mother’s sole custody; Khlevner v. Khlevner, an appellate reversal of rulings on an order of protection, visitation schedule, and settlement agreement; Kaprov v. Stalinsky, upholding a Florida apartment as marital property and an eleven-year maintenance award; and Warshaw v. Warshaw, securing maintenance, child support, and expenses for a wife based on the husband’s asset dissipation. Awesome Attorneys has not independently verified these case outcomes beyond the firm’s own account. Past results in any matter do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matter.

Client Voice

The firm’s own testimonials page carries multiple attributed (first-name-and-initial) reviews. One client, Michael J., wrote that Levoritz “responds quickly to all my questions and didn’t hesitate to walk me over details multiple times.” Another, Marina B., a nine-year family court client, praised his “professionalism, accessibility, prompt responsiveness, exceptional litigation skills, and straightforward communication” but added directly that “it’s important to note that his services come with a significant cost” — a cost-related caveat Awesome Attorneys is noting here rather than omitting, consistent with disclosing mixed feedback rather than filtering it out.

Beyond the Courtroom

Levoritz has been a source for national outlets on family-law-adjacent financial and workplace topics, including a piece on employers and “gray divorce” for Employee Benefit News and commentary on protecting retirement assets through a QDRO covered by TheStreet and AOL Finance, per the firm’s published media list.

Recognition

The firm’s site cites a 2026 Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating at the highest tier for both legal ability and ethical standards, a peer-review-based process Martindale-Hubbell has run since 1887, and lists an Avvo rating and Super Lawyers recognition. New York does not maintain a board-certification system for family law comparable to Texas’s TBLS or Arizona’s Board of Legal Specialization, so Awesome Attorneys does not apply “specialist” language to any New York family law attorney on that basis.

New York Legal Backdrop

New York permits no-fault divorce under Domestic Relations Law § 170(7) once a spouse swears the marriage has been irretrievably broken for at least six months, alongside older fault grounds like adultery and abandonment that remain on the books but are rarely used. Marital property is divided under equitable distribution (DRL § 236(B)(5)) — a fairness standard, not an automatic 50/50 split — while spousal maintenance follows a statutory income-based formula (DRL § 236(B)(6)) and child support follows the Child Support Standards Act (DRL § 240(1-b); Family Court Act § 413). Custody determinations turn on the best-interest-of-the-child standard rather than a fixed formula. None of this is legal advice; a specific divorce, custody, or support matter should be evaluated by a licensed New York attorney based on the actual facts involved.

Awesome Attorneys Assessment

Levoritz’s clearest differentiator is a published record of contested matters that went to the Appellate Division and won, rather than a practice built primarily on negotiated, uncontested resolutions. The honest trade-off, disclosed directly by at least one of the firm’s own featured reviews, is that this level of litigation-forward representation comes at what the client herself called “a significant cost,” and the firm’s fee structure is not published for prospective clients to compare in advance. For a Manhattan client facing a genuinely contested custody, relocation, or support dispute who is prepared for litigation rather than a quick settlement, that combination of appellate experience and cost is a reasonable basis for a shortlist.

Methodology and Sourcing

This profile was researched from the Levoritz Law Firm’s own website, including its case-results page, published client testimonials, media coverage list, and firm address and attorney biography pages.

Publisher Disclosure and Independence Notice

Awesome Attorneys is an independent legal directory and editorial publication. This profile was not paid for, commissioned, or reviewed by the Levoritz Law Firm prior to publication. Awesome Attorneys does not endorse, recommend, or warrant any profiled firm, and inclusion in this directory is not a paid placement. “Awesome Attorneys” is a brand name only and does not constitute a rating or ranking claim. Facts stated are current only as of this profile’s research date.

Related legal guides

Browse all guides →

The Levoritz Law Firm: The Financial District Divorce Firm That Took a $163,500 Spousal Support Case to the Appellate Division and Won