NY man sues ex-wife to get 100K dlrs engagement ring back

NEW YORK - A real estate honcho is suing a woman he married in a Jewish religious ceremony to claim a 100,000-dollar diamond engagement ring he gave her.arry Lipschutz claims he was clueless that Park Ave. dentist Nadia Kiderman was still legally married to another man when they tied the knot before a rabbi.

However, she said things soured when she realized he was just a “a con artist preying on wealthy women.”

“There’s no way I am giving him the ring back! It’s something out of this world,” the New York Daily News quoted Kiderman as saying of the custom-made Princess-cut bauble.

Talking of Lipschutz, she said that he wasn’t the man she thought he was.

“Women should run from him like fire,” she said.

Lipschutz, 53, of Monsey, Rockland County, placed what she said was a 7-carat rock on her finger just weeks before their Orthodox Jewish wedding in September 2006.

And she gave him a 25,000 dollar gold Rolex that he still has, she said.

He and Kiderman, 48, who lives in Westchester County, split a few weeks before the one-year anniversary of their religious ceremony, and a Rockland judge last year ordered Kiderman to return the ring.

A state appeals court has since given Lipschutz the wedded diss, tossing the lower court decision and declaring he was “well aware” Kiderman was still married to Queens pediatrician Howard Nass when he gave her the massive diamond ring .

Kiderman was not divorced until December 2007, according to the appeals court decision, but a lawyer for Kiderman said that never mattered to Lipschutz.

“His concern was not a civil divorce but a get, a Jewish divorce. He told her that as long as she gets the get, he wanted to marry her,” said lawyer Anthony Piscionere.

Kiderman had secured a get from her first husband in 2002.

“A religious divorce cannot terminate a marriage. Since she didn’t have a civil divorce, she was, in the eyes of New York State, still married to her first husband,” countered Abe Konstam, a lawyer for Lipschutz.

The stunning ring remains in the hands of a third party until the couple settle their differences - or take the matter to trial.

“He doesn’t have the ring in his pocket, she doesn’t have the ring on her finger,” said Konstam. (ANI)