AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

LOUIS ROTHBARD, Plaintiff, v. JAY S. JONES and EDWARD FANNING, Comprising the Firm of ELLIOTT, JONES FANNING, Defendants.

On agreed statement of facts, judgment unanimously directed for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,133.33, without costs. When this agreement was made the plaintiff was still a lawyer and, therefore, the agreement which he made with the defendants did not violate section 274, subdivision 2, of the Penal Law in so far as it concerned compensation for services theretofore rendered by the plaintiff in this action. Even if plaintiff were a layman at the time the agreement was entered into, it would still be enforcible against the defendants. ( Irwin v. Curie, 171 N.Y. 409, 414; Matter of Kelsey, 186 App. Div. 95, 97.) We place the decision, however, on the first ground. The situation in Dudar v. Milef Realty Corp. ( 227 App. Div. 279) differs radically from that involved herein. In any event, in so far as that decision is contrary to the holding herein, we do not follow it.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ROTHBARD v. JONES
(Jul 1, 1932)