<b>Cameo Clips</b> Lawsuit over 'Hairspray' Agent Fees to Continue

According to the court's decision, Blonsky entered into a one-year, 20% commission contract with Elmont, NY-based Morgit in January 2005. In an affidavit, Karaszek said that she and Ostrowski had gone to 'extreme lengths to support and coordinate Blonsky's career,' including providing training, coaching, traveling to various auditions and advice on how to buy clothes, the judge noted.

Conversely, attorneys for the Blonsky family argued that the agreement had expired, and that Nikki had secured the film role six months after ending her contract with the agents. The attorneys, Stewart L. Levy and James E. Doherty of Manhattan, further contended that Morgit was an unlicensed theatrical employment agency, thus rendering any agreement unenforceable.

Buffalo-based attorney James Ostrowski, the brother of Michael Ostrowski, countered that an implied-in-fact contract existed, as Nikki Blonsky's role was 'procured due to the direct and continuing efforts of the plaintiffs.' A student involved in acting and singing, Blonsky was selected to play Tracy after two auditions and a screen test in 2006, at about the time she graduated from high school. She got the news at the ice cream parlor where she worked part time.

In an interview, James Ostrowski described the partnership's relationship with Blonsky as 'hands-on.' 'There was a lot of day-to-day management which was done,' he said, detailing his brother and Karaszek's efforts in securing a three-picture deal for Blonsky, including 'taking her to events, giving her advice about acting. There was a lot of coaching going on.'

According to court documents, Morgit advised Blonsky to perform in as many plays as possible, and its principals were on call '24/7.'

In denying the motion to dismiss, Justice Bucaria said that NY General Business Law Secs. 171 and 172 applied to the agreement at issue. Read together, the two sections describe what a theatrical employment agency is, and require that such agencies be licensed or 'registered as an agent.' However, he held, 'there is no language that explicitly voids contracts with such non-licensed agencies.'

The judge pointed to differing case law on the subject. In Gervis v. Knapp, 43 N.Y.S.2d 849 (1943), the court sided with the plaintiff, an unlicensed theatrical manager, holding that '[t]he contract establishes that plaintiff was primarily a manager,' rather than an employment agent. The opposite result was reached in Angileri v. Vivanco, 137 NYS2d 662 (1954), where the court held that a contract with an unlicensed agency is unenforceable.

The contract at issue in Karaszek v. Blonsky contained a clause that provided Nikki Blonsky would 'deal with only one personal manager exclusively,' but could 'freelance' with as many as 10 agents. Looking at the contract and the affidavit of Karaszek, which described 'in great detail' the history of the parties' relationship, Justice Bucaria found that 'the plaintiffs herein have factually manifested a cause of action from within the four corners of the complaint.'

The lapse of the one-year arrangement does not necessarily time-bar the action either, held the judge. 'The language of the complaint and the opposing affidavit of Margaret Karaszek clearly describes extensive efforts by the plaintiffs, that commenced during the contract term and continued post contract termination, on the part of the defendants to obtain the New Line Cinema contract which was entered into subsequent to the expiration of this contract,' wrote the judge.

Claims for breach of good faith and unjust enrichment were also allowed to continue.

Morgit has not 'seen a dollar' from Nikki Blonsky's earnings from 'Hair- spray,' said James Ostrowski, adding his clients are prepared to proceed to trial. According to the complaint, they are seeking $100,000 in damages. Doherty, of entertainment law firm Eisenberg, Tanchum & Levy, declined to comment. A preliminary conference was set for early in July.

An actress who played a leading role in the film 'Hairspray' may owe her former managers commission fees for landing her the role, a Long Island, NY judge has ruled.

In Karaszek v. Blonsky, 12660/07, Supreme Court Justice Stephen A. Bucaria of Nassau County declined to grant a motion to dismiss by the parents of Nicole Blonsky, the Great Neck teenager nominated for a Golden Globe for her 2007 role as Tracy Turnblad in the big-screen adaptation of the Broadway musical.

Blonsky, now billed as 'Nikki,' co-starred with John Travolta and Queen Latifah as a plus-sized Baltimore teen who is selected to appear on a 1962 TV dance show and raises the community's consciousness about civil rights. She is being sued by her former managers, Margaret Karaszek and Michael Ostrowski, principals of Morgit Management, for allegedly breaching her agreement with the talent agents after she landed the role of Tracy, the film's central character.

According to the court's decision, Blonsky entered into a one-year, 20% commission contract with Elmont, NY-based Morgit in January 2005. In an affidavit, Karaszek said that she and Ostrowski had gone to 'extreme lengths to support and coordinate Blonsky's career,' including providing training, coaching, traveling to various auditions and advice on how to buy clothes, the judge noted.

Conversely, attorneys for the Blonsky family argued that the agreement had expired, and that Nikki had secured the film role six months after ending her contract with the agents. The attorneys, Stewart L. Levy and James E. Doherty of Manhattan, further contended that Morgit was an unlicensed theatrical employment agency, thus rendering any agreement unenforceable.

Buffalo-based attorney James Ostrowski, the brother of Michael Ostrowski, countered that an implied-in-fact contract existed, as Nikki Blonsky's role was 'procured due to the direct and continuing efforts of the plaintiffs.' A student involved in acting and singing, Blonsky was selected to play Tracy after two auditions and a screen test in 2006, at about the time she graduated from high school. She got the news at the ice cream parlor where she worked part time.

In an interview, James Ostrowski described the partnership's relationship with Blonsky as 'hands-on.' 'There was a lot of day-to-day management which was done,' he said, detailing his brother and Karaszek's efforts in securing a three-picture deal for Blonsky, including 'taking her to events, giving her advice about acting. There was a lot of coaching going on.'

According to court documents, Morgit advised Blonsky to perform in as many plays as possible, and its principals were on call '24/7.'

In denying the motion to dismiss, Justice Bucaria said that NY General Business Law Secs. 171 and 172 applied to the agreement at issue. Read together, the two sections describe what a theatrical employment agency is, and require that such agencies be licensed or 'registered as an agent.' However, he held, 'there is no language that explicitly voids contracts with such non-licensed agencies.'

The judge pointed to differing case law on the subject. In Gervis v. Knapp , 43 N.Y.S.2d 849 (1943), the court sided with the plaintiff, an unlicensed theatrical manager, holding that '[t]he contract establishes that plaintiff was primarily a manager,' rather than an employment agent. The opposite result was reached in Angileri v. Vivanco , 137 NYS2d 662 (1954), where the court held that a contract with an unlicensed agency is unenforceable.

The contract at issue in Karaszek v. Blonsky contained a clause that provided Nikki Blonsky would 'deal with only one personal manager exclusively,' but could 'freelance' with as many as 10 agents. Looking at the contract and the affidavit of Karaszek, which described 'in great detail' the history of the parties' relationship, Justice Bucaria found that 'the plaintiffs herein have factually manifested a cause of action from within the four corners of the complaint.'

The lapse of the one-year arrangement does not necessarily time-bar the action either, held the judge. 'The language of the complaint and the opposing affidavit of Margaret Karaszek clearly describes extensive efforts by the plaintiffs, that commenced during the contract term and continued post contract termination, on the part of the defendants to obtain the New Line Cinema contract which was entered into subsequent to the expiration of this contract,' wrote the judge.

Claims for breach of good faith and unjust enrichment were also allowed to continue.

Morgit has not 'seen a dollar' from Nikki Blonsky's earnings from 'Hair- spray,' said James Ostrowski, adding his clients are prepared to proceed to trial. According to the complaint, they are seeking $100,000 in damages. Doherty, of entertainment law firm Eisenberg, Tanchum & Levy, declined to comment. A preliminary conference was set for early in July.