The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In 1968, D, a California resident, retained the services of a New York law firm. She entered into an oral agreement with the firm that she would pay five percent of her earnings as compensation for the firm's services. P, an attorney with the firm, assumed responsibility for a large share of the firm's activities on D's behalf. In 1971, the law firm dissolved. In 1972, P began to represent D. P alleges that in April of 1972, he and D entered into an oral contract whereby D agreed to continue performing a variety of services for P and she, in turn, agreed to pay him ten percent of all gross professional income derived from the projects that were initiated during his tenure. In 1978, P moved to California, at P's request. D discharged P approximately two years later. P sued D to recover commissions on projects that were initiated during his tenure and produced or continued to produce income after his termination. The court held that New York's statute of frauds applied and served to bar P's oral contract claim unless D was equitably estopped from asserting the statute as a defense. D got the judgment, and P appealed. P contends that the district court should have applied California, not New York, law to resolve this dispute.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.