By As Law Online 
High-profile family court cases rarely stay private once social media enters the picture. In recent years, the intersection of contentious custody battles, viral videos, and online campaigns has raised hard questions about digital accountability, defamation law, and the limits of public interest commentary. One such case centers on Allan Kassenoff, a former BigLaw partner whose professional life, family court proceedings, and later civil litigation became the focus of intense scrutiny.
This article provides a clear, chronological overview of Allan Kassenoff’s legal career, the Westchester family court dispute involving Catherine Kassenoff, the subsequent online public interest campaign, and the defamation lawsuit that followed. It draws on court records, firm statements, news reporting, and publicly available filings to present the sequence of events without speculation.
Early Life, Education, and Path to BigLaw
Allan A. Kassenoff earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Columbia University in 1995, studying chemical engineering. He then attended the University of Pennsylvania Law School, graduating with a J.D. in 1998. During law school he served as an Articles Editor of the Journal of International Economic Law.
After graduation he joined the litigation department of Kaye Scholer, LLP. In 2005 he moved to Greenberg Traurig, LLP, where he became a litigation partner. Over nearly two decades at the firm he focused primarily on patent litigation, intellectual property disputes, ANDA Hatch-Waxman matters, and post-issuance patent proceedings. His clients included major technology and consumer companies such as Samsung, Amazon.com, General Mills, Garmin, and others.
Industry rankings reflected this work. He was listed in Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America (2022), Benchmark Litigation as a National Practice Area Star and Local Litigation Star (multiple years), The Legal 500 United States (2022), Patexia rankings for patent litigators, Managing IP’s IP Stars, IAM Patent 1000, and LMG Life Sciences as a Life Science Star. He was admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey and appeared before various federal courts, including the Federal Circuit.
By the late 2010s, Kassenoff was a well-established patent litigator at a major international firm, with reported compensation in the high six figures to approximately $1 million annually according to some public accounts of the period.
Marriage, Family, and the Start of Divorce Proceedings
Allan Kassenoff and Catherine Kassenoff (née Youssef) married on November 13, 2006. Catherine, also an attorney, had worked as a federal prosecutor and later as special counsel. The couple had three daughters. They lived in the Larchmont area of Westchester County, New York.
On May 24, 2019, Allan filed for divorce in New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County (Index No. 58217/2019). Court filings and subsequent statements indicate the action followed concerns about the children’s statements at school and the dynamics within the household. Catherine later characterized the marriage and the ensuing litigation very differently, alleging long-term abuse and a biased court process.
The case quickly became highly contested. Both parties retained counsel. Early proceedings involved temporary custody arrangements, including a nesting schedule at one point, and motions regarding access to communications. Allan’s side presented text messages and other evidence; Catherine contested the manner in which certain materials had been obtained and used.
The Westchester Family Court Custody Proceedings
Family court cases involving custody often turn on forensic evaluations, temporary orders, and the best-interest-of-the-child standard under New York law. In this matter, the court appointed forensic evaluators and an attorney for the children.
In March 2020, following a report from court-appointed forensic evaluator Dr. Marc Abrams, the court issued an interim order granting Allan temporary sole legal and physical custody of the three children. Catherine was limited to supervised visitation. The order also addressed occupancy of the marital residence. Catherine maintained that the evaluation and subsequent rulings were flawed and that the children had expressed a desire to live with her. She alleged parental alienation claims were used against her while her own reports of abuse were discounted.
A multi-day interim custody trial took place in the summer of 2020 before Judge Nancy Quinn Koba. In August 2020 the court issued a decision continuing Allan’s temporary sole legal and physical custody, exclusive occupancy of the marital home, and therapeutically supervised visitation for Catherine (typically two hours twice per week plus limited supervised virtual contact). The court referenced concerns about the children’s emotional well-being and the need for structured contact.
Additional proceedings followed over the next several years. There were motions, changes in judicial assignment, and further evaluations. Dr. Abrams was later removed from the panel of forensic custody evaluators in the First and Second Judicial Departments in August 2021 after a complaint process. A subsequent evaluator, Kathleen McKay, issued a report that the court ultimately considered. Catherine pursued various legal challenges, including efforts related to text messages and claims of misconduct by professionals involved in the case. Some of those collateral actions were dismissed.
In May 2023 the court entered an order suspending Catherine’s visitation. Shortly thereafter, limited contact was permitted under specific conditions for Mother’s Day. Throughout the litigation, Allan’s position, supported by the successive court findings he cited, was that the restrictions were necessary for the children’s welfare. Catherine’s public statements and filings described the process as predatory, financially ruinous, and biased toward the monied spouse. Multiple judges and two court-appointed forensic evaluators reviewed evidence that included videos; according to firm statements issued later, none of those judges or evaluators found Allan had committed the abuse alleged with respect to the children or domestic violence as contended in the manner that would alter the custody outcome.
The case generated thousands of filings. Both sides incurred substantial legal fees. Public accounts differ sharply on the underlying family dynamics, the credibility of various witnesses (including former household staff), and the fairness of the process. What is clear from the record is that the Westchester court repeatedly affirmed sole custody with Allan and restricted Catherine’s access.
Catherine Kassenoff’s Final Statements and Death
On May 27, 2023, Catherine Kassenoff posted a lengthy statement on Facebook announcing that she intended to end her life that day by medically assisted suicide in Switzerland. In the post she described a prolonged nightmare involving alleged abuse, financial devastation, and a court system that had separated her from her daughters. She referenced a cancer diagnosis and stated she lacked the strength to continue fighting. She also provided links to a Dropbox containing videos, court documents, and other materials.
Catherine died that day in Switzerland at a facility associated with the Pegasos organization. Subsequent reporting, including accounts from individuals involved in the assisted-suicide process and statements attributed to her oncologist, indicated that plans for the procedure had been made earlier and that the cancer narrative as presented in the final post did not fully align with medical records available to some parties. Swiss privacy rules limited public disclosure of the precise medical details surrounding the death. The U.S. State Department issued a Consular Report of Death Abroad confirming the event.
The Facebook post and accompanying materials became the catalyst for broader public attention.
Viral Videos, Social Media Campaign, and Public Backlash
Within days of the May 27 post, social media influencer Robbie Harvey (also referred to as Robert Harvey), who has a substantial following on TikTok and other platforms focused on advocacy related to domestic abuse and family court issues, began posting a series of videos. The videos incorporated clips from the materials Catherine had shared, along with commentary portraying Allan Kassenoff as an abusive spouse and father who had manipulated the court system. Some videos referenced alleged payments to professionals and described the outcome as a miscarriage of justice.
The content spread rapidly. Individual videos accumulated millions of views. Comment sections filled with criticism of Allan, calls for action against him and his law firm, and expressions of support for Catherine’s narrative. Greenberg Traurig received a volume of communications. Allan later alleged in court filings that he and his children received hundreds or thousands of harassing messages. His matrimonial attorney, Constantine “Gus” Dimopoulos, also reported significant disruption to his practice, including large numbers of phone calls in a single day.
On June 2, 2023, Greenberg Traurig issued a public statement. It noted that Allan had been involved in a divorce and custody matter lasting more than four years. After lengthy trials and review of the facts, including some videos, none of the four judges who presided or the two court-appointed neutral forensic evaluators found him to have committed wrongdoing or abuse as to the children or the contended domestic violence. The firm stated it was conducting its own investigation and that Allan was taking a voluntary leave of absence to focus on his family.
On June 11, 2023, the firm announced that Allan Kassenoff had resigned, effective immediately. The statement expressed sensitivity to the needs of the three children and indicated the firm would create a dedicated trust fund for their benefit, to be voluntarily funded by lawyers and staff. Allan’s resignation from Greenberg Traurig marked the end of his nearly 18-year tenure as a partner there.
The episode illustrated how quickly private family court materials, once released online, can generate sustained public pressure on individuals and institutions. It also highlighted tensions between free speech, public interest commentary on alleged systemic failures in family courts, and the potential for reputational and professional harm when complex, multi-year proceedings are reduced to short video formats.
The Defamation Lawsuit Against Robbie Harvey
In September 2023, Allan Kassenoff, individually and as guardian of his minor children, filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola Division), where Harvey resides. The suit sought approximately $150 million in damages and asserted claims including defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with business relationships, and cyberstalking. Dimopoulos was initially involved as a co-plaintiff in some accounts but the primary focus remained on Kassenoff’s claims.
The complaint detailed the history of the marriage and divorce from Allan’s perspective, alleged that Harvey had published false statements and misleading characterizations of the videos and court process, and claimed that the campaign caused the loss of his partnership at Greenberg Traurig, ongoing harassment, and emotional harm to the children. Harvey’s counsel characterized the suit as an attempt to silence criticism and a form of strategic lawsuit against public participation.
Procedural developments followed. In February 2024, Judge T. Kent Wetherell II dismissed an amended complaint as excessively lengthy and containing unnecessary commentary, granting leave to refile a more concise pleading. Kassenoff filed a second amended complaint. Certain claims were narrowed. A cyberstalking injunction component was later addressed separately, with some aspects moving toward state court consideration.
On July 5, 2024, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice. They reported that they had reached a confidential Settlement Agreement and Releases. The motion requested that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement terms and resolve any related disputes. The court entered an order of dismissal with prejudice on July 8, 2024, closing the case while retaining enforcement jurisdiction. No public details of the financial or non-monetary terms were released.
In subsequent public statements, Harvey indicated he had taken down the relevant videos, acknowledged errors in his earlier reporting that stemmed from incomplete information, and apologized to Allan and the children. He stated that further discussion of the matter was not productive and that the family should be allowed to move forward.
Career Transition to Family Law Practice
Following his resignation from Greenberg Traurig and the resolution of the defamation action, Allan Kassenoff established Kassenoff Law, PC, a matrimonial and family law practice based in White Plains, New York (Westchester County). The firm’s website describes his motivation as stemming from personal experience navigating an extremely complex and contentious divorce. Practice areas include high-conflict divorce, child custody, division of assets, divorcing a narcissistic spouse, divorce mediation, neutral forensic evaluation issues, orders of protection, prenuptial and postnuptial agreements, spousal support, and high-net-worth divorce.
In public materials, Kassenoff emphasizes the use of litigation experience combined with an understanding of New York family law to help clients avoid unnecessary escalation and manage financial impact. Client testimonials on the site speak to professionalism, strategic advice, and support in difficult proceedings. He continues to reside in the Larchmont area with his three daughters.
This transition from patent litigation partner at a large firm to a focused family law practice represents a notable career pivot driven by the events of 2019–2024.
Broader Implications for Social Media, Defamation, and Family Court
The sequence of events surrounding Allan Kassenoff raises several issues of ongoing interest to legal professionals, court observers, and those concerned with digital accountability.
First, family court proceedings are often confidential or sealed in significant respects for the protection of children. When one party releases selective materials online, the public receives an incomplete picture. Short-form video commentary can amplify particular narratives while omitting the full evidentiary record reviewed by multiple judges and evaluators.
Second, the speed and scale of online campaigns can produce real-world professional consequences even when court findings differ from the online portrayal. Law firms face pressure from clients, employees, and the public. Individuals may experience sustained harassment.
Third, defamation law provides a potential remedy, but litigation is costly, time-consuming, and uncertain. Settlements frequently remain confidential, limiting public insight into the resolution. Courts must balance First Amendment interests against claims of reputational harm, especially when the underlying subject involves allegations of domestic abuse or parental fitness.
Fourth, the case has been cited in broader discussions about family court reform, the role of forensic evaluators, parental alienation claims, and the experiences of both protective parents and those accused of abuse. Different advocacy communities interpret the same facts through opposing lenses. Court records, successive judicial rulings, and the ultimate custody outcome remain the most authoritative sources on the legal determinations made in Westchester.
Readers seeking primary materials can review publicly available appellate decisions (such as the February 2023 Appellate Division ruling addressing social media restrictions), the federal docket in the Northern District of Florida, and contemporaneous firm statements. News organizations including the New York Post, ABA Journal, Law360, and Bloomberg Law provided contemporaneous coverage based on filings and interviews.
Conclusion
Allan Kassenoff’s path from Columbia and Penn Law graduate to Greenberg Traurig patent litigation partner, through a multi-year Westchester custody battle, public controversy fueled by social media, and a subsequent defamation settlement, offers a detailed case study in how private family disputes can intersect with professional reputation and online activism. Court records show that successive judges and forensic evaluators awarded him sole custody. The online campaign that followed Catherine Kassenoff’s final statements led to his resignation from BigLaw. The confidential settlement of the lawsuit against Robbie Harvey closed one chapter of the public litigation.
The episode underscores the importance of distinguishing court findings from viral narratives, the practical challenges of enforcing digital accountability, and the personal cost of prolonged high-conflict family proceedings. For those navigating similar situations, consulting experienced family law counsel remains essential. Understanding the full chronological record, rather than isolated video clips or summaries, provides the clearest foundation for informed discussion.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is Allan Kassenoff?
Allan Kassenoff is a New York attorney who practiced patent litigation as a partner at Greenberg Traurig for nearly 18 years before resigning in 2023. He later founded a family law practice in Westchester County focused on high-conflict divorce and custody matters.
What was the outcome of the Westchester custody case?
Multiple judges and two court-appointed forensic evaluators reviewed the evidence. Allan Kassenoff was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the three children, with Catherine limited to supervised visitation that was later further restricted and then suspended.
Why did Allan Kassenoff leave Greenberg Traurig?
Following the viral circulation of videos and related commentary in late May and early June 2023, the firm placed him on leave pending internal review and then accepted his resignation effective June 11, 2023. Firm statements noted the court findings of no wrongdoing regarding the alleged abuse.
What happened in the defamation lawsuit against Robbie Harvey?
Allan Kassenoff filed a $150 million suit in the Northern District of Florida in September 2023. After procedural developments, the parties reached a confidential settlement in July 2024. The case was dismissed with prejudice, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.
Did Catherine Kassenoff have terminal cancer?
Her final Facebook post referenced a diagnosis. Subsequent reporting based on medical contacts and the timeline of assisted-suicide planning indicated differences between the public narrative and available records. Swiss privacy rules limited full public disclosure.
What is Allan Kassenoff doing now?
He operates Kassenoff Law, PC in White Plains, New York, practicing matrimonial and family law with an emphasis on high-conflict cases informed by his personal experience.
Where can primary documents be found?
Appellate decisions are available through New York official reporters. The federal defamation docket is accessible via PACER or public repositories. Firm statements and contemporaneous news reports based on filings provide additional context.
You May Also Like: Jake Paul Suing Anthony Joshua: Truth Behind the Legal Battle