Yakov ('Jacob') Pyetranker

Jacob has tried numerous family matters to conclusion, ranging from highly contested custody litigation to cases involving complex valuation issues. He has gained experience in many of the varied aspects of family law.

Jacob has also developed a skill set in the appellate arena, briefing and arguing cases before Connecticut's appellate courts, such as McKenna v. Delente, 123 Conn. App. 137 (2010) (co-author on brief), Brown v. Brown, 132 Conn. App. 30 (2011) (co-author on brief), Keller v. Keller, 141 Conn. App. 681 (2013) (co-author on brief), Pryor v. Pryor, 162 Conn. App. 451 (2016) (argued and co-author on brief), Weyer v. Weyer, 164 Conn. App. 734 (2016) (co-author on brief).

In 2017, Jacob briefed Chang v. Chang, 170 Conn. App. 822, cert. denied, 325 Conn. 910 (2017), which affirmed the client's successful claim at trial that the parties' premarital agreement was invalid.

In 2018, in Keusch v. Keusch, 184 Conn. App. 822 (2018), Jacob briefed and argued the finer points of setting and modifying child support pursuant to Connecticut's child support guidelines.

In Krahel v. Czoch, 186 Conn. App. 22, cert. denied, 330 Conn. 958 (2018), Jacob briefed and argued for a successful outcome affirming the trial court's sanction of testimonial preclusion based on the husband's failure to disclose important financial information and documents.

In 2019, Jacob briefed and argued Oudheusden v. Oudheusden, 190 Conn. App. 169, cert. granted, 332 Conn. 911 (2019). The decision represents a sea change in Connecticut law on "double dipping." The Supreme Court heard argument this year and a decision is pending.

He also briefed and argued Barber v. Barber, 193 Conn. App. 190 (2019). Although the Appellate Court was constrained to dismiss his client's cross appeal on mootness grounds, Jacob successfully defended the trial court's favorable rulings from attack in the main appeal.

In 2020, Jacob briefed and argued Chang v. Chang, 197 Conn. App. 733 (2020), this time helping overturn a contempt finding of an improper exercise of final decision-making authority.

He also briefed and argued Silver v. Silver, 200 Conn. App. 505, cert. denied, __ Conn. __ (2020). The Appellate Court affirmed, agreeing with Jacob's alternative claim that the trial court's postjudgment clarification, even if treated as a modification, was not erroneous.

Jacob has practiced matrimonial law exclusively from the start of his legal career in 2007, alongside attorneys widely considered to be the best trial lawyers in Connecticut and legends of the matrimonial bar.

Jacob is a graduate of Fordham University. He earned his juris doctor degree at St. John’s University School of Law in 2006. He is admitted to practice in Connecticut, New York and the District of Columbia. Prior to attending law school, Jacob obtained a master’s degree in philosophy from the New School for Social Research. After graduating from law school, Jacob served as a legal research clerk for the judges of the Connecticut Superior Court.

Jacob is a member of the Connecticut Bar Association, the Fairfield County Bar Association and the New York State Bar Association. He was selected as a Super Lawyers® Connecticut Rising Star for 2013, and every year since. He was selected for a 2016 Top 10 Under 40 Attorney Award for the State of Connecticut by the National Academy of Family Law Attorneys. He also volunteers his time as a court-appointed special master in the Stamford Superior Court for family law cases.

In 2017, Jacob presented on “Custody Evaluations: Understanding the Tools and Challenging the Report,” for the National Business Institute’s seminar on Advanced Custody and Support Issues. Jacob also published, with co-author Alexander J. Cuda, Esq., an article on May 12, 2017 in the Connecticut Law Tribune, “Court Time Is Valuable – Don’t Waste It.” In 2018, Jacob participated in a presentation at the Fairfield County Bar Association concerning the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in O'Brien v. O'Brien.

Practice Approach

I try to practice with a simple goal in mind. I want to define the client's interests and reasonable expectations. I then advance those interests within the bounds of the law and based on sound judgment.

It is true that most cases settle. However, when amicable resolution fails, I welcome the opportunity to advocate zealously for a client in the courtroom.