Sei sulla pagina 1di 12
 
ANNED
ON
112712011
2
SUPREME
COURT
OF
THE
SPATE
OF
MEW
YORK
NEW
YBRK COUNTY PART
,?6
-v-
MOTION
DATE
-
OTION
SEQ.
NO.
MOTION
CAL.
NO.
The
following papera, numbered 1
to
11
were
read
on
this
motion
*for
u(f
hm~~
Notice
of
Motion/
Order
to
Show
Cause
.-
Affidavits
Exhibits
..,
Answering Affldavits Exhiblts Replying Affidavits
Cross-Motion:
n
Yes
E4
No
Upon the foregoing
papers,
it
is
ordered that this
motlon
5
l;/ a
///I
4
c[r --
heck
one:
INAL
DISPOSITION
NON-FINAL
DISPOSITION
Check
if
appropriate:
ONOTPOST EFERENCE
 
Plaintiff,
Index
No.
1
16050/09
-against-
Motion
Seq.
Nos.
001
&
002
KURT B.
FRED
alWa
C‘l
JKl’
IR
FRlED,
DANlEL
L.
FRTED, HAROLD
6‘3ILL,ET,
LAWREVCE
14.
GTl.I,ET,
EI&H
PHO‘TOGRAPf
HERS
dk/a
Elr‘kI
1
PHOTOGMPHERS
VIUEO
PKODUC’T’IONS,
and
H.&H.
PHOTOGRAPHERS OF
NEW
YORK,
TNC.
.
DORIS LING-COHAN,
J.:
This
is
a
case
in which
it
appears
that
the
“misty watercolor rneinories’’
and
the
Lcscnttered
pictures
of
he
smiles
. .
.
left behind”’
a1
lhe
wedding
were
more
iniprtant
than
the
real thing.
Approximately
seven
years
ago, plaintiff’ married
his
nowdivorced
wife,
with
photographs taken
by
defendants.
Although
the
marriage did not
endure,
plaintift’s
fuiy
over
the
quality of the photographs
and
video
continued
on.
Backproud
On
November
29,
2007,
plaintiff‘
3‘odd
licmis
entered
inlo a
contracl
with
defendant
H&H
Photographers dlda
H&W
Pliotograplicrs
&
Video
Productions
andor H.&M.
Photographers
of
New
Y
ork,
Inc.
(collectively,
“H&H’’)
to
photograph and
video
his wedding ceremony
and
reception,
which
took
place
on December
28,
2003
‘T’he
contract
pricc was
4,100,
of
which
Referencing
the
song
’The
Way
We Were,
written
hy
Alnn
Bergman
and
Marilyn
Rergmnn,
performed
by
Barbra
Streisand.
Motion
sequerice
numbers
00
1
and
002
are
consolidatod
for disposition
herein.
 
 3,500
was
paid
by
plaintiff
at
the
lime
he:
entered
into
the
contract,
leaving
a balance
of
600.
In
his
complaintt,
plaintiff
all,eges
that
employees
of
H&H
represented
that
HrPtI-I’s
photographers
were
personally
F-itniIiar
with
the
lvcatioii
of
the
wedding
and
would
provide
professional
photography
aid
video services
Cor
the
entjre:
wedding
event.
After initiating
his
divorce
action3, plaintiff
sues
for his
“actixul
damages
in
excess
of
48,000”4,
with
interest,
punitive
damages
not
lcss
than
“threc
times
plaintiff7s
actual
damages”,
and for attorneys’
fees.
Am.
Coinpl
at
1
I.
Plaintiff
alleges
1.ha.1
the
services hc
received
were
unacceptable,
as
to:
(.1)
quality oftlie
proofs
of
the
photographs;
(2)
length,
alleging
that
the
entire
wedding
was not
kideotaped
;ts
promised;
and
(3)
the
photogmplrer’s
uizfnrriiliarity
with
the
wedding
site.
Plai.ntiff
hrther
alleges that after hc
expressed
his
dissatisfacljon,
H&H
represented
they
would compensate
hiin
for
their misrepresentations
and
their
unacceptable
and
unprofessional
work,
product,
but failed
to do
so. Further,
plaintiff
alleges
that
after several
years,
H&H
improperly
threatened
collection
efforts
and
harassed plaintiff.
Plaintiff
commenced
this
action,
alleging
the
following
cmscs
of
action
against
all
defendarits:
(1)
breach
of
contract;
(2)
negligcnt misrepresentation;
(3)
violation
ofthe
New
Y
orli
General
Business
Law
pertaining
to
,fala:
advertising,,
misleading
trade
practices
and
prohibited collection
practices;
4,)
intentional
misrepreseiitatic,n/ljrL?ud;
5)
punitive
damages;
(6)
uttomeys’
fees;
(7)
negligent
infliction
of
emotional
distress;
and
(8)
intentional
infliction
of
emotional
distress.
1
The
Court
mtes
that
plaintit’fis
now
divorced
from
his
wife
since
April
28,
2010,
yet,
:,..
nonetheless continues
this
lawsuit
for
the
alleged
failure
1.0
provide
adequate
photography
services
at
the
now
estranged
couple’s
vvedding.
$48,000
appears
to be
the
cost
oEtlie wedding.
, See
Am
Compl
26.
2

Premia la tua curiosità

Tutto ciò che desideri leggere.
Sempre. Ovunque. Su qualsiasi dispositivo.
Nessun impegno. Annulla in qualsiasi momento.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505