From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind v. Skelgas Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 15, 1992
188 A.D.2d 398 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 15, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.).


An issue of fact as to whether plaintiff law firm is a third-party beneficiary of defendant's contract with Drexel Burnham Lambert exists by reason of a provision thereof requiring defendant to pay Drexel's out-of-pocket expenses, including counsel fees. That the agreement contemplated direct payment to Drexel for its out-of-pocket expenses does not necessarily preclude a finding that the parties to the contract intended plaintiff to be a third-party beneficiary where the contract elsewhere provided that it was for the benefit of, inter alia, Drexel's agents. Furthermore, since questions of fact exist as to whether defendant requested and benefited from the legal services provided by plaintiff, the causes of action based on the theories of implied contract and quantum meruit are not subject to dismissal.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.


Summaries of

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind v. Skelgas Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 15, 1992
188 A.D.2d 398 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind v. Skelgas Group

Case Details

Full title:PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON GARRISON, Respondent, v. SKELGAS GROUP…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 15, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 398 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
591 N.Y.S.2d 378

Citing Cases

Comm'r of the Dep't of Soc. Servs. of N.Y. v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Hosp.

Because the settlement agreement is ambiguous concerning DSS's status as a third-party beneficiary, the issue…