Local Photographers' Business Thrives Despite High-Profile Lawsuit

• Editor's note: Dan Fried just emailed notifying me that the case was adjourned from Wed., Jan 18 to Feb. 8. 

Almost every morning since November, Irvington's Dan Fried, his business partner and staff enter their greeted by a voice mail box full of messages from curious reporters and empathetic photographers voicing their support in ong and painful lawsuit initiated by an angry client with considerable legal power and an idea that has caught the attention of journalists and legal experts worldwide. 

Everyone knows that pictures are subjective; only you can decide whether a photographer has captured your smile as you took the first bite wedding cake, or whether your new wife's hair is captured to glisten in your wedding photos as it did on the night you both said "I do."

And the fact of the matter is, not everyone will always agree whether the photography meets that standard.

In November, 2003 Todd Remis and Milena Grzibovska hired H&H Photographers—then based in Riverdale—to photograph and shoot video of their wedding planned for the following month at Castle on the Hudson in Tarrytown.

The contract was for $4,100.

"We were very familiar with the venue and sent two of our best photographers and videographers," said Dan Fried, an Irvington resident who inherited his father's 65-year-old studio along with his business partner Larry Gillet, the son of the company's other founder. 

Fried stood behind the work of his staff eight years ago—as he does now—but when Remis came to the studio to go over the proofs, he was disappointed.

Remis never ordered the album, and never covered the full cost of his original contract.

And six years later Remis sent a threatening letter to H&H, saying that: "If [H&H] fail[ed] to comply with this request by the stated date, we will have no choice but to seek legal action as a result of H&H Photographer’s breach of contract."

Which he eventually did—asking for not only the original $4,100 but also "$48,000 to recreate the entire wedding and fly the principals to New York so the celebration can be re-shot by another photographer," according to Remis' deposition as paraphrased in the New York Times article that broke the story in November. 

"They went back after their honeymoon and Todd told me they were horrified by the photos," said Gail Parenteau, a publicist recently hired by Remis. "He said the photographers left before the end of the wedding, and I even saw some shots in which the camera showed up in a mirror."

Though Remis' demand of nearly $50,000 to make up for the alleged "emotional stress" caused by the loss of memories from the wedding that consummated his eventually-failed marriage has been dismissed, the case has dragged on in New York State Supreme Court—something Fried is entirely flummoxed by. There is yet another court date set for *Feb. 8 at 2:30 p.m. to determine whether there was in fact a breach of contract.

Because of the initial demand was for more than $50,000, the case went to NY State Supreme Court, Fried said. Why it's lingered in such a high court dispite the dismissal of the largest claim, he isn't sure. 

"Had we known [Todd and Milena] were separated, had we known that this would escalate to such a level, we would have immediately offered to forget the rest of the money they owed [for the un-purchased album] and ended it then and there," said Fried. 

Fried also pointed out that the marriage had already ended when Remis sent the threatening letter, which he thinks is hugely important to the case. 

Parenteau countered: 

"The lawsuit was to show how emotionally damaged Todd [Remis] was by not having the memories of his wedding."

Though Fried says his loyal clients have remained faithful and that he has even garnered new clients throughout this process, he says the legal bills are putting an enormous financial strain on the company.

"I think this is totally disingenuous—that he's completely taking advantage of the legal system," said Fried, who pointed out that Remis was originally represented by the law firm in which his father is a long-time partner. "We've had to pay just about $50,000 in legal fees anyway, so it almost doesn't matter that the claim got dismissed."

But Fried can recognize small victories and laugh—albeit with a twinge of bitterness—at the whole debacle.

"A reporter from a London newspaper was really doing his homework as he wrote his story on the case and asked to see the photos," Fried said. "He later told us he was getting married and—if we lived in England—he'd have asked us to shoot his own ceremony."

Fried is annoyed by the assumption that the photos were somehow botched—even in publications that recognize the outlandishness of Remis' original demand.

"I've watched the tape over and over; I've looked through the album," he said. "They're beautiful."

On Wednesday afternoon, Fried and Remis will appear in court in Manhattan, at which the point the judge can dismiss it on the grounds that Remis' side has taken too long to file all the necessary paperwork, set a trial date or—as was determined by the court on Jan. 11, 2011—set sanctions on Remis for "not submitting typed affirmations" within a reasonable amount of time.

"I think he is dragging this on for as long as he can to cost us as much money in legal fees as he possibly can," Fried said. "I just hope it ends as soon as possible—though I've stopped getting my hopes up."  

Check Patch for updates on this story.