Paul v. Westergaard — 75 N.Y.2d 755

Majority

p. 755

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Appellant, v Louis Westergaard, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Argued November 21, 1989;

decided December 19, 1989

p. 756

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Allan Blumstein and Maria H. Bainor for appellant.

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

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.

Cases cited

Martin Roofing, Inc. v. Goldstein 60 NY2d 262 N.Y. 1983-11-29 at 267-268 p. 756