Kurt E. Johnson

Attorney in New City, NY
Phi Alpha Delta. Member, Board of Trustees, Dwight Englewood School, 1974-1979. Member, New Jersey Supreme Court, District Fee Arbitration Committee, 1978-1981. Borough Attorney, Borough of Cresskill, New Jersey, 1978-1986. Judge, Demarest Municipal Court, Demarest, New Jersey, 1981-1985.
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 4.4 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Trusts and Estates
  • Commercial Law
  • Taxation
  • Real Estate
  • Litigation


Peer Rating


Overall Peer Rating

4.4 out of 5.0
  • Meets very high criteria of general ethical standards
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.

Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 1967, New York
1969, New Jersey

Law School Attended

Columbia University
Class of 1966

New York University School of Law
Class of 1967

University Attended

Johns Hopkins University
Class of 1963

Birth Information

Born in 1941
Jersey City, New Jersey, April 10, 1941

Associations & Memberships

New York State Bar Association.

Representative Cases

Ayres v. Dauchert, 130 NJ Super 522 App. Div., 1974; Mangone v. Mangone, 202 NJ Super 505 Ch. Div., 1985; Groesbeck v. Linden, 321 NJ Super 349 App. Div, 1999; Matter of Rausman, 50 AD3d 909, 2008.

Contact Information






Send email to Kurt E. Johnson

Office Information
Kurt E. Johnson
 67 North Main Street, P.O. Box 1070,
New City, NY 10956


Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C. (New City, New York)

About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.


Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.