H&H Photographers & Video Productions



H&H Photographers & Video Productions

5909 Riverdale Avenue

Riverdale, NY 10471



August 10, 2009



Re:  Photography Contract between H&H Photographers

and Todd Remis and Milena Grzibovska



I am writing with regard to the Photography Contract executed by H&H Photographers and Todd Remis and Milena Grzibovska.  Specifically, we entered into a contract with H&H Photographers to photograph and video our wedding.  However, as explained below, H&H Photographers breached our agreement by virtue of the fact that both the photographer and videographer left prior to the conclusion of the wedding as well as failed to deliver our photographs or video.  Consequently, we demand a refund of our deposit of $3,500 plus interest for a total of $5,748.68.  In addition we demand the immediate delivery of our photographs/proofs/negatives and video, despite the fact they are not satisfactory nor in compliance with the contract.


In November, 2003, we entered into a contract with H&H Photographers for the provision of photography and videography services at our wedding which took place at the Castle on the Hudson, Tarrytown, NY on December 28, 2003.  During our initial meetings and telephone calls with Curt Fried, we were provided assurances of H&H Photographers’ high level of experience and expertise, as well as its familiarity with the Castle.  Per our agreement, H&H Photographers would provide complete photo and video coverage of the wedding, including the scheduled ketubbah signing, the wedding ceremony, and the entire reception start to finish.  We paid H&H $500 upon execution of the contract and $3,000 prior to the wedding date, totaling $3,500.


Notwithstanding our contractual agreement, H&H Photographers failed to cover the entire event and, in fact, both the videographer and the photographer left the event prior to its conclusion, thereby missing the last dance and bouquet toss.  Moreover, both the photographs and the video footage that were taken were unprofessional. 


Pursuant to our agreement, the videographer was to video the entire event and provide us with a full length unedited copy of the raw footage, as well as a two hour edited video of our wedding day.  However, in violation of our agreement, the unedited raw footage that we received only covered two hours of our six hour event. 






Moreover, contrary to the assurances we had received earlier regarding H&H Photographers’ familiarity and experience regarding photographing weddings at the Castle, the photographer: (1) seemingly was not familiar with the location (could not even find the location in the sample pictures shown to us of a prior event photographed by a different photographer employed by H&H Photographers – after insistence by the photographer that no such location existed, Milena and Todd walked around all public areas of the Castle and successfully located the site); (2) had not attended any event at the Castle prior to our wedding;  and (3) despite our numerous requests, insisted on taking all pre-ceremony pictures of the wedding party, families, and bride and groom in a single location in front of a mirror in which the photographer’s lighting and equipment were visible in every location.  Despite insistence by Milena and Todd to move the location as well as the desire to take some photographs in different locations, including under the custom made chuppah, the photographer refused both requests.  This issue obviously caused unnecessary tension and anxiety immediately prior to the start of the wedding, and continues to this day.   


When we received the proofs, it was no surprise that many of the pictures contained a mirror with a reflection of the photographer’s equipment and assistant.  Immediately upon viewing these proofs, we contacted H&H Photographers to express our dissatisfaction.  We went to H&H Photographers in January, 2004 to discuss the situation.  While we were received initially with unacceptable hostility and abusive comments by Larry Gillet, upon contacting the H&H employees who covered our wedding, we received an apology for the early departure and were told that H&H Photographers would compensate us by agreeing to include in the video pictures that our guests had photographed.  In addition, to remedy the situation regarding the pictures containing the mirror and reflections of the photographer’s equipment and assistant, H&H Photographers offered to digitally alter the photographs, as well as add some with the chuppah in the background.  We had been told these pictures would be forthcoming, and more than 5 years later have still not received any of these pictures!  We were also told that in light of the situation, the contractual provision regarding the timeframe in which orders must be placed would be waived.


We contacted H&H Photographers to follow-up in March 2004 as we had not received the proofs we had been promised, at which time, we were assured that H&H Photographers would fix the pictures and send them to us, as well as give us an extra-large album to further compensate us for the problems caused by H&H Photographers.  Unfortunately, we did not receive any digitally altered proofs as promised.  Consequently, we contacted H&H Photographers again in February 2005 at which time we spoke with Dan Fried who informed us that he wanted to correct the issue and complete the outstanding order.  In April 2005, we again spoke with Dan, but still had not received any revised proofs. 






To this date, several years after our wedding and despite our numerous attempts, H&H Photographers has still failed to provide us with our video and wedding pictures, despite its many assurances.  Therefore, we demand the return of the full amount of our deposit plus interest totaling $5,748.68, plus the photographs/proofs/negatives and video no later than September 1, 2009.  If you fail 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.








Todd Remis



Todd’s private contact information omitted