DArezzo v. Appel

Background

Angela D’Arezzo and Catherine Appel worked together from 2005 through 2018 on The Salty Mountain, a book about D’Arezzo’s life and family in Italy. D’Arezzo had muscular dystrophy and previously received care at the International Center for the Disabled, where she met Appel. Appel had worked there and later became President and Artistic Director of Overtime Dance Foundation, Inc.

The parties disputed their respective contributions. Appel said she wrote all of the book’s material and created its structure, narrative, and wording. D’Arezzo said she wrote portions outside Appel’s presence and brought them to their writing sessions, and that they collaborated in developing the book. Their disagreements became especially serious in 2018, when they discussed authorship, copyright ownership, publication, and proceeds. Appel ultimately registered the work listing herself as the sole author, and the book was published in early 2019.

D’Arezzo filed this action in January 2022. After an earlier motion to dismiss, the remaining claims were: a declaration that D’Arezzo and Appel were co-authors of a joint work; breach of fiduciary duty against Appel; an accounting claim if they were found to be co-authors; and a constructive-trust claim against Appel and Overtime Dance. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence leaves any genuine factual dispute requiring a trial.

Discussion and Rulings

Joint-authorship claim

The defendants argued that the joint-authorship claim was barred by the Copyright Act’s three-year limitations period. For an authorship claim, the period begins when the alleged author receives a plain and express rejection of the authorship claim.

The court held that the evidence created a genuine factual dispute about whether and when Appel clearly rejected D’Arezzo’s claim to joint authorship. The court considered Appel’s April and May 2018 communications, including statements asserting that Appel wrote the text and did not agree that they were co-authors. But other parts of the communications referred to their collaboration, and the parties continued exchanging drafts that attributed the book to D’Arezzo with Appel’s assistance. Because a reasonable factfinder could interpret the communications in different ways, the court denied summary judgment on the joint-authorship claim.

Breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim

The defendants argued that Appel and D’Arezzo did not have a fiduciary relationship. Under New York law, a fiduciary relationship may arise when one person places trust and confidence in another, who thereby gains influence or superiority. The inquiry is fact-specific.

The court found evidence that the parties had known each other for at least 25 years, worked closely together on the book for more than a decade, and that D’Arezzo relied on Appel’s advice and publishing expertise. That evidence could allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that a fiduciary relationship existed. The court therefore denied summary judgment on the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim.

Accounting claim

D’Arezzo sought an accounting of income and proceeds from the use, sale, production, reproduction, or exploitation of The Salty Mountain if she and Appel were found to be co-authors. The court ruled that this claim was preempted by the Copyright Act. It therefore granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the accounting claim.

Constructive-trust claim

D’Arezzo sought a constructive trust over money or property allegedly received by Appel or Overtime Dance based on an alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The defendants relied on their argument that the fiduciary-duty claim should be dismissed. Because the court found factual disputes that prevented summary judgment on that claim, it also denied summary judgment on the constructive-trust claim.

Disposition

Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. The motion was granted as to the accounting claim and denied as to the joint-authorship, breach-of-fiduciary-duty, and constructive-trust claims. The court stated that those three remaining claims would proceed to a jury trial.