## Facts

- William Friedkin, a director and producer, entered a written New York contract with Harry Walker, Inc. in 1972.
- The agreement made Walker Friedkin’s sole agent to negotiate, secure, book, manage, and arrange Friedkin’s lectures, talks, and addresses.
- Walker had discretion to set lecture fees, would handle billing and promotional tasks, and would retain a 30% commission from fees earned.
- Walker arranged approximately 23 lecture engagements for Friedkin; Friedkin alleged Walker failed to appear at 20 of them.
- Friedkin sued to recover commissions and other monies paid, alleging Walker operated as an employment agency without a required license under New York’s General Business Law.
- Walker denied it was an employment agency, characterizing itself as a business representative, and asserted a counterclaim for reputational harm.
- The case came before the Civil Court on Friedkin’s motion for summary judgment and to dismiss Walker’s counterclaim.

## Issues

1. Whether Walker’s booking and negotiation of lecture engagements for a percentage commission constituted operation of an “employment agency” under New York’s General Business Law requiring licensure.
2. If Walker was an unlicensed employment agency, whether the contract was illegal and unenforceable, permitting Friedkin to recover commissions already paid.
3. Whether Walker’s opposing affidavits raised a material factual dispute sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
4. Whether Walker’s counterclaim for reputational injury was legally viable given the asserted illegality and summary-judgment record.

## Decision

- The court granted Friedkin summary judgment.
- The court held Walker’s conduct fell within the statutory definition of an employment agency as a matter of law.
- Because Walker lacked the required license, the contract was illegal and unenforceable, and Friedkin was entitled to restitution of commissions paid.
- The court rejected Walker’s opposition as conclusory and unsupported by probative evidentiary facts describing distinct managerial services.
- The court dismissed Walker’s counterclaim for reputational injury.

## Legal Principles

- Employment-agency status under New York’s General Business Law turns on the substance of the services provided; negotiating and procuring engagements for a fee or percentage commission can constitute employment-agency activity regardless of self-described labels.
- A contract made in violation of a regulatory licensing requirement is illegal and unenforceable; restitution may be awarded to prevent an unlicensed actor from retaining benefits contrary to the statute’s public policy.
- On summary judgment, conclusory, self-serving denials and characterizations that lack specific evidentiary facts do not create a triable issue of fact.

## Conclusion

The court treated a lecture-booking agent who procured engagements for a percentage commission as an employment agency subject to licensing, voided the unlicensed contract, ordered return of commissions, and held that unsupported, conclusory affidavits could not defeat summary judgment or sustain a related counterclaim.


Friedkin v. Harry Walker, Inc., 90 Misc. 2d 680, 395 N.Y.S.2d 611 (Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1977)