Michael Liberato (defendant) engaged general contracting firm D&R Construction and Maintenance (D&R) to perform work on a commercial construction project. Liberato orally promised D&R that he would fully compensate entities hired by D&R for all subcontracted work performed. Thereafter, D&R engaged Anthony Filo (plaintiff) as a subcontractor to provide materials and perform services to build curbing, sidewalks, floors, and other work on the project. D&R failed to make payments to Filo for the services rendered. Filo approached Liberato and requested the past due amounts. Liberato refused to pay. Filo filed suit against Liberato, alleging fraud, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and conversion. Filo argued that Liberato had paid one other subcontractor in full, and that there was thus no justification for not paying for Filo’s services. The trial court granted Liberato’s motion to dismiss the complaint, holding that the statute of frauds required Liberato’s oral promise to pay the debts of D&R to be in writing. Filo appealed.