From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton v. Westergaard

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 19, 1989
75 N.Y.2d 755 (N.Y. 1989)

Opinion

Argued November 21, 1989

Decided December 19, 1989

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Martin Evans, J.

Allan Blumstein and Maria H. Bainor for appellant.

Robert M. Stolz and Brian E. Maas for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

This is an action to recover for legal services. The plaintiff law firm billed its client, a limited partnership, for a fee, a portion of which the limited partnership paid. The effort in this action to recover the balance of the fee from the individual shareholder of a corporate participant in the limited partnership must be rejected. It is not supported by any evidence of an enforceable independent promise by the individual to pay the limited partnership's obligation and is clearly barred by the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [2]; Martin Roofing v Goldstein, 60 N.Y.2d 262, 267-268).

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton v. Westergaard

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 19, 1989
75 N.Y.2d 755 (N.Y. 1989)
Case details for

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton v. Westergaard

Case Details

Full title:PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON GARRISON, Appellant, v. LOUIS WESTERGAARD…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 19, 1989

Citations

75 N.Y.2d 755 (N.Y. 1989)
551 N.Y.S.2d 896
551 N.E.2d 97

Citing Cases

Rosenman Colin LLP v. Sandler

In order to enforce an oral promise to answer for another's debt, therefore, the promisee must prove that the…

Parma Tile Co v. Short Estate

General Obligations Law § 5-701 (a) (2) was enacted to protect against an unintentional oral commitment…