"Groomzilla": lawsuit a matter of principle

It may come across as an extreme case of nuptial nostalgia: a now-divorced man saying a photography studio should pay to re-create his wedding to make up for what he considers flawed pictures and video.

But after being branded a "groomzilla," Todd Remis said last week that his now-notorious lawsuit is about holding a business to a pledge, not holding on to a broken marriage.

"It was their failure to deliver after a promise and a handshake" agreement to retouch the photos, Remis said in a statement provided to The Associated Press. "How could a business treat a customer this way?"

While suits over wedding photographs aren't unusual, what set Remis' case apart is his mention of wanting to reconstitute the ceremony and celebration of a bygone union. He said during sworn questioning last summer that he and his wife began divorce proceedings in 2008. The split was final in 2010, and he said he believed his ex-wife had moved back to her native Latvia.

Nonetheless, "I need to have the wedding re-created exactly as it was so that the remaining 15 percent of the wedding that was not shot can be shot" and the album and video completed "so we have memories of the wedding," he said during his July deposition, according to a transcript.

Remis, who declined through a spokeswoman to be interviewed, sued H&H Photographers in 2009, saying the venerable suburban New York studio had done a shoddy job of shooting his and Milena Grzibovska's December 2003 wedding. The photographer ignored the couple's request not to shoot in front of a mirror that ended up reflecting photographers' lights, and the photographer and videographer left 45 minutes before the end of the reception, says Remis, 44.

The couple had paid a $3,500 advance toward a $4,100 total price for the photos, part of a wedding he said cost $48,000 in all, including guests' travel.

H&H co-owner Daniel Fried says he stands by the quality of the two hours of video and the hundreds of color and black-and-white photos, which were shot on film.

As for Remis' contention that the photographers missed key pieces of the celebration by leaving early, Fried said they had provided ample coverage of the affair, including blessings that came late in the event.

Fried said by phone from the studio in Irvington, N.Y., that he offered in 2004 to adjust the photos and upgrade the wedding album, telling Remis the two needed first to pick out which pictures they wanted.

He says Remis never got back to H&H until he wrote in 2009 to demand a refund and interest -- about $5,750 in all -- and the completed photos and video.

Remis says H&H didn't return his calls, which the studio denies. He took umbrage when the studio responded to his letter with a $1,200 bill for the balance of the fee and interest, threatening to call in a collection agency if it wasn't paid. The letter grew into a lawsuit.