## Facts

- A theatrical producer had a written, exclusive personal-services contract with a vaudeville performer known professionally as “Billy House.”
- The parties’ relationship began with a five-year engagement starting in 1923, and in 1927 they entered a new contract extending the engagement through 1931.
- The contract described the performer’s services as “unique and extraordinary,” and he was a headline performer whose act was treated as non-substitutable in the relevant venues.
- A competing producer sought the performer’s services for a musical show and negotiated with the producer for a release or transfer of the contract.
- The negotiations failed, and the competing producer then hired the performer directly.
- The producer sued and moved for a preliminary injunction to (i) stop the performer from working for anyone else during the contract term and (ii) stop the competing producer from employing him.
- The trial court denied the preliminary injunction.
- On appeal, the performer and competing producer argued, among other defenses, that no written contract existed; the appellate court found the record clearly established a written contract and treated the denial as evasive.

## Issues

1. Whether a court should grant a preliminary injunction enforcing the negative covenant of an exclusive personal-services contract by restraining a performer from working for others during the contract term.
2. Whether a knowing third party may be preliminarily enjoined from employing the performer in violation of that exclusive contract.
3. Whether the alleged uniqueness of the performer’s services and the inadequacy of money damages support interim injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the order denying the preliminary injunction.
- The court directed issuance of an injunction pendente lite restraining the performer from rendering services to anyone other than the producer during the contract term.
- The court also enjoined the competing producer and its related entities from employing the performer in violation of the contract.
- The court concluded the written contract was clearly established and that defendants’ attempt to deny it did not create a genuine dispute defeating interim relief.

## Legal Principles

- Courts generally will not compel affirmative specific performance of personal services, but may enforce an exclusive personal-services contract by a negative injunction restraining the performer from working for others.
- Negative injunctive relief is appropriate where the performer’s services are unique or extraordinary and the loss cannot be adequately remedied by money damages.
- A third party with notice of an existing exclusive contract may be enjoined from inducing or participating in its breach by employing the performer during the contract term.
- For a preliminary injunction, strong proof of a valid, subsisting contract and threatened irreparable injury supports interim relief pending final adjudication.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that the producer was entitled to preliminary injunctive relief enforcing the exclusivity of a valid entertainment contract: the performer could be restrained from competing performances, and a competitor with notice could be restrained from employing him, because the performer’s services were treated as unique and damages were inadequate.


Harry Rogers Theatrical Enters., Inc. v. Comstock, 225 A.D. 34, 232 N.Y.S. 1 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1928)