Sorenson v. Wolfson

• Decision Date: 30 March 2015
• Docket Number: No. 10 Cv. 4596JGK.,10 Cv. 4596JGK.
• Citation: 96 F.Supp.3d 347
• Parties: Sigurd A. SORENSON, Plaintiff, v. Stanley WOLFSON, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

96 F.Supp.3d 347

Sigurd A. SORENSON, Plaintiff

v.Stanley WOLFSON, Defendant.

No. 10 Cv. 4596JGK.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed March 30, 2015.

Filed March 31, 2015.

Sigurd A. Sorenson, Edgewater, NJ, pro se.

Sigurd Ansgar Sorenson, Baker & McKenzie LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Andrew William Prior, Roger Juan Maldonado, Balber, Pickard, Battistoni, Maldonado, & Van Der Tuin, Rita W. Gordon, Gordon Associates, New York, NY, for Defendant.

OPINION & ORDER

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

This case is the latest chapter in a lengthy and acrimonious dispute about one apartment in a condominium development.

In 2005, plaintiff Sigurd Sorenson executed purchase agreements with Bridge Capital Corporation (“Bridge Capital”) to acquire three unfinished units in a condominium building. Defendant Stanley Wolfson is the sole owner of Bridge Capital. Sorenson provided Bridge Capital with the floorplan and the roofplan for one apartment unit. Todd Ernst, an architect, created those plans.

The deal fell through, and Sorenson then sued Wolfson—among others—in New York State court. The New York State courts dismissed all but one of Sorenson's claims. Sorenson now claims that Wolfson defrauded the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court and that was the reason for his lack of success in the state court litigation.

Sorenson also alleges that Wolfson distributed a floorplan and a roofplan for the apartment that Sorenson sought to buy. He contends that the plans were provided to an advertising company, to potential buyers, and to the New York State Attorney General. Sorenson insists that he was the owner and the author of those plans and that Wolfson therefore infringed his copyright to those plans.

This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). The Court conducted a non-jury trial from November 10, 2014, through November 17, 2014. Sorenson, an attorney, proceeded pro se at trial. Having considered all of the evidence and assessed the credibility of the witnesses, the Court makes the following findings of fact and reaches the following conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52. For the following reasons, the plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Defendant Stanley Wolfson is a real estate developer and the sole owner, principal, and shareholder of Bridge Capital. Trial Tr. at 313. Bridge Capital was the original sponsor of a residential condominium development located at 257 West 117th Street in New York, New York (the “Building”). Trial Tr. 313–14.

2. In 2002, Bridge Capital hired Todd Ernst, R.A., to design the floorplans for the residential units in the Building. As part of this project, Ernst designed a floorplan for Unit 7A.¹ Def.'s Ex. 42.3A. The floorplan for Unit 7A included two bedrooms and the following notation: “(C) 2002 Todd A. Ernst.” Id.

3. On March 5, 2004, the New York State Attorney General accepted Bridge Capital's Offering Plan for Condominium Ownership of the Building. Def.'s Ex. 89, at 1. The Offering Plan included a pictorial representation of the two-bedroom Unit 7A floorplan. Id. at 157.

4. In or around July 2004, Sorenson met Wolfson, and Sorenson expressed interest in purchasing apartment units in the Building. Trial Tr. 95–96. At the time of the conversation, the Building had been gutted, and its interiors not yet constructed. Id.

5. Thereafter, Sorenson contacted Marcia Esquenazi, an architect, about creating floorplans for the units that he wished to purchase. Sorenson told Esquenazi that he would like to have four bedrooms in one of the units. Esquenazi informed Sorenson that if he purchased a unit on the top floor of the Building, he could install skylights to comply with New York air and light regulations. Trial Tr. 444–45; Def.'s Ex. 113. Sorenson did not hire Esquenazi. Trial Tr. 453–55.

6. In the summer of 2004, Sorenson instead hired Ernst to create blueprints for Unit 7A and two other units in the Building. Trial Tr. 67–68. From 2004 to 2007, Sorenson paid Ernst approximately $50,000 to create those plans. Trial Tr. 68.

7. Sorenson testified that in “late 2004 or early 2005” he provided Ernst with “sketches” and “detailed instructions” for the design of Unit 7A. Trial Tr. 56, 65. Sorenson also testified that he provided these sketches and instructions in their “first meeting” in August 2004. Trial Tr. 59, 82, 97.

8. At trial, Sorenson did not submit any of these sketches or instructions, and he never asked Ernst to produce a copy of them. Trial Tr. 59–60.

9. Sorenson further testified: “I physically went to the site with Mr. Ernst and his employees to mark where the walls should be and should end, where the skylight should be, where the electrical pitch pockets and the plumbing pitch pockets should be, where the stairs should be, where the bulkhead should be.” Trial Tr. 38.

10. Ernst sent Sorenson a proposed contract dated September 3, 2004, for creating a design for Unit 7A. Def.'s Ex. 110. The contract identified the scope of services that Ernst would perform, the project's estimated cost, and a fee schedule. Id.

11. On September 8, 2004, Sorenson sent the contract back to Ernst with suggested changes and questions. Id.

12. The contract included the following provision: “All drawings and specifications prepared by our office shall remain our exclusive property at all times for the purpose of reproduction. Our drawings and specifications may not be used on any other project or for the completion of this project by any other firm without our written permission.” Id. Sorenson did not comment on, or suggest any changes to, this provision.

13. At trial, neither party produced a signed version of this contract. However, Sorenson testified that he paid invoices sent by Ernst, Trial Tr. 146, and that “it must have been in my mind that the terms in [the contract] would be the basis of our agreement.” Id.

14. On September 21, 2004, Gadi Lubetzky, an Ernst employee, sent an e-mail to Sorenson with the subject “7A Floor Plan.” Attached to the e-mail were a floorplan and a roofplan for Unit 7A. Def.'s Ex. 42.12. The plans listed “Ernst Architect, PLLC” as the architect and included the following notation: “(C) 2004 Todd A. Ernst, R.A.” Id.

15. Ernst and his employees created floorplans and roofplans through AutoCAD, which is a software application for designing and drafting architectural blueprints. Trial Tr. 39. Esquenazi testified that when creating floorplans with the AutoCAD software, she begins with a sketch of the project. Then, she inputs code and program requirements. Trial Tr. 442–43. Both inputs, according to Esquenazi, require architectural and AutoCAD training. Trial Tr. 443–44.

16. Sorenson testified that he has no knowledge of how to design or draft plans with the AutoCAD software. Trial Tr. 65, 71, 141, 173. Sorenson also testified that he lacks the expertise and knowledge to create plans that would be approved by the New York City Department of Buildings. Trial Tr. 66.

17. The 2002 Unit 7A plan created by Ernst differed most noticeably from the 2004 plans Ernst made for Sorenson in that the updated plans included two additional bedrooms; placed the three non-master bedrooms on the “left” side of the plans; placed the master bedroom and master bathroom on the “lower right” side of the plans; changed the location of the second bathroom to where the master bathroom previously was located; added stairs for roof access; and added an additional window to the “left” side of the plans. The updated plans also included diagrams for potential furniture placement and a design for the roof. Compare Def.'s Ex. 42.3A, with Def.'s Ex. 42.12.

18. On September 21, 2004, Sorenson e-mailed Lubetzky and asked her to indicate where on the plans the skylights would be located. Def.'s Ex. 42.13. Lubetzky responded by providing updated floorplans and roofplans, which indicated where the skylights would be placed. Def.'s Ex. 42.14. The plans included Ernst's copyright notice and title block.

19. On September 23, 2004, Lubetzky sent an e-mail to Sorenson with the electrical and lighting plans for Unit 7A attached. Those plans also included Ernst's copyright notice and title block. Def.'s Ex. 42.16. On November 8, 2004, Ernst sent Sorenson another e-mail, which included the Unit 7A floorplans and roofplans. Those plans also bore Ernst's copyright notice and title block. Def.'s Ex. 42.29.

20. On January 28, 2005, Sorenson and Bridge Capital signed an “Amended Purchase Agreement” for Unit 7A.² The agreement provided that the purchase price—a $99,900 deposit and an $899,100 balance—covered the “Unit and Roof Rights” of Unit 7A. Def.'s Ex. 17, at ¶ 3. The agreement also provided that “construction of the Building ... shall be substantially in accordance with the Plan and the Plans and specifications.” Id. at ¶ 17.1.

21. Paragraph 37(a) of the agreement provided that “[s]ignificant additional and different work shall be done in the build out of the Unit than is specified in the Plan.... Specifically, the Build Out ... shall be performed and completed per approved architectural plans building specifications ... prepared by Ernst Architect PLLC ... on behalf of Purchaser. Purchaser shall provide Sponsor with Purchaser's Specifications within 21 days after the signing of this Agreement.” Id.

22. On February 4, 2005, Yossi Melamed, an Ernst employee, sent an e-mail to Scott Evans and Sorenson with revised Unit 7A plans attached. Def.'s Ex. 42.37; Trial Tr. 498.

23. In April 2005—after Wolfson had refused to sell the three units to Sorenson—Sorenson filed a complaint in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Bridge Capital and Wolfson. Sorenson v. Bridge Capital Corp., No. 601289/2005 (N.Y. Sup.Ct. filed April 12, 2005). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants breached the Amended Purchase Agreement and committed fraud (the “contract action”). Def.'s Ex. 25.³ Sorenson filed an amended...