Wedding Photog sued... hillarious!

[Darkman]

NYT: Groom sues photographer for new wedding - US news - The New York Times - msnbc.com

"Mr. Remis’s wedding took place in 2003 and he waited six years to sue. And not only has Mr. Remis demanded to be repaid the $4,100 cost of the photography, he also wants $48,000 to recreate the entire wedding and fly the principals to New York so the celebration can be re-shot by another photographer.

Re-enacting the wedding may pose a particular challenge, the studio pointed out, because the couple divorced and the bride is believed to have moved back to her native Latvia. "

[d2creative]

This isn't funny. It's sad.

"Curt and Dan Fried are paying their lawyer, Peter Wessel, themselves, they said, and the costs — $50,000 — the time the suit has taken and the distress have taken a toll."

The guy is 87 years old! That sucks. What a waste.

[Tom]

The groom has been out of work since 2008. That should explain a lot.

I would say more, but I would be afraid he would file a defamation suit against me.

[wondershots]

Abuse of the legal system. The Judge should have thrown him out on his backside.

[ggeen]

The judged reviewed the case and threw out some aspects of the suit already. The remaining portion of the suit she felt deserved to be heard.

[JohnT]

The whole thing is asinine, and I agree that it's an abuse of the legal system.

[Howard Barlow]

Remis v Fried :: January, 2011 :: New York Other Courts Decisions :: New York Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia

[craigb456]

So it looks like everything was dismissed

"Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (motion sequence number 001) is granted [*7]to the extent that the second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth causes of action are dismissed as to all defendants; and it is further
ORDERED that the first and fourth causes of action are dismissed as to defendants Daniel Fried and Lawrence Gillet with costs and disbursements; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against defendant H. & H. Photographers of New York, Inc. (motion sequence number 002) is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that the remaining defendants are directed to serve and file an answer to the complaint within 30 days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, and all sides shall complete discovery expeditiously; and it is further
ORDERED that within 30 days of entry of this order, defendants shall serve a copy of this order with notice of entry upon plaintiff. "