Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison v. Westergaard

551 N.E.2d 97, 75 N.Y.2d 755, 551 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 4389
New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 19, 1989·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

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 NY2d 262, 267-268).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison v. Westergaard, 551 N.E.2d 97, 75 N.Y.2d 755, 551 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 4389 (N.Y. 1989).

551 N.E.2d 97 (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison v. Westergaard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carducci v. Bensimon
115 A.D.3d 694 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Hamburger, Maxson & Yaffe, L. L. P. v. Solow
277 A.D.2d 425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Parma Tile Mosaic & Marble Co. v. Estate of Short
155 Misc. 2d 950 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
Corporate Structures, Inc. v. Cook
184 A.D.2d 1000 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)