The Supreme Court of the State of New York has issued a decision in which
it expressly denied the application of Frank Galasso, Matthew Ballinger and Gregory
Raposo---former members of the boy band Dream Street-- requesting that the Supreme Court revoke its prior approval of a Production Agreement between the performers and Dream Street Entertainment, Inc., the creators and producers of the group.
In a written decision by Justice Diane A. Lebedeff, dated August 7, 2002 the Court
noted that a fourth group member of Dream Street Jesse McCartney had resigned from the group prior to commencement of the proceeding in April and had no standing to commence the proceeding. The Court also noted that Christopher Trousdale had remained a member of
Dream Street and had not joined in the proceeding. A copy of the Court's decision has been posted on the Dream Street Entertainment website. The Court noted that Mr. Galasso, Mr. Ballinger and Mr. Raposo "are no longer members of the group for they have withdrawn from participation."
In dismissing the allegations by Mr. Galasso, Mr. Ballinger, Mr. Raposo and
Mr. McCartney that the performance of the Production Agreement impaired their
"well being" the Court stated:
"Moreover, given that these young men have refused to participate
in the group and have neglected to make any constructive effort to
achieve a resolution of the behavior they reportedly find objectionable,
the court finds suspect their assertion that their 'well being...
is being impaired' by the contract (Arts and Cultural Affairs Law
Sec. 35.03[2][e]). The charges made against the Producer show
all the signs of a creative attempt to avoid contractual obligations,
in the same vein as the recently popular attempt to use bankruptcy
proceedings to try to avoid a no longer desired executory personal
services contract...."
The Court also chastised the performers for leaking confidential
legal and court documents to the press and the internet in violation of a Court Order:
"It adds no degree of comfort that, despite being challenged to do
so, no explanation has been tendered [by the performers] justifying
the presentation of the motion papers on the [performers'] behalf
to the media, which resulted in the exposure to non-parties of references
to, and copies of papers which had been ordered sealed by the court
order of September 8, 2000...This conduct is a further sign that the
[performers] were attempting to create public pressure to achieve what
they have been unable to gain by well-reasoned and legal argument,
supported by carefuly crafted proposals and documents ready for
court approval."
The Court also noted:
" This determination 'shall not affect any right of action
existing at the date of' this ruling upon the application
for revocation of approval [by the Court of the Production
Agreement]...and does not constitute a revocation of
approval."
(emphasis added)
Justice Lebedeff's decision expressly confirmed that Dream Street Entertainment, Inc.
was the creator and sole owner of thee trade mark for the name Dream Street and acknowledged
that the efforts of Dream Street Entertainment were instrumental in creating and promoting
Dream Street into a successful singing group with a number 1 selling album on an independent
label.
"This success was not merely fortuitous. Dream Street is a "concept group"
created by a manager-promoter who hires performers to play the roles in the
group and directs its performance, much like Menudo, the Monkees and the
Spice Girls. In this case, Dream Street Entertainment, Inc. was the organizer,
promoter and manager, and was responsible for the group's style and characteristics.
As acknowledged in the contracts signed by these parents and the promoter which
were approved bythe Court, Dream Street Entertainment, Inc. ("Producer")
'conceived of' and 'created' a group known as "Dream Street" and
selected the five teenagers originally making up Dream Street..."
The Court also stated that the performers would have to obtain Court approval
before seeking to enter into any agreements to perform together as a group, and that Dream
Street Entertainment retained all rights that it had pursuant to the Production Agreement
to enforce its rights pursuant to the Production Agreement (including but not limited to
trade mark, and exclusivity of services) to oppose any Court approval, or commence any action to enforce its rights pursuant to the Production Agreement.
| 
