Southern Brooklyn

Owner Of Monica’s Bridal Files $72,000 Lawsuit Over Wedding Video


Monica + Felix Wedding Film from Visualaz on Vimeo.

Presented without comment. Because I can’t. I just can’t.

From the New York Post:

A Brooklyn couple were completely screwed over by the company that made their wedding video, with the filmmakers piping in sitcom-style clap tracks, missing key moments in the ceremony and trying to get the groom to “play a transvestite,” the bride claims in a new lawsuit.

Monica Nickchemny, 26, and the owner of Monica’s Bridal in Brooklyn, paid $12,750 to film company Visualez in August 2011 to produce a wedding video and a “love story” that would be played for the wedding guests at the reception, court papers state.

The Daily News had this:

“When I watched my wedding video it really sounded like I was watching an episode of ‘Seinfeld,’” she said.

“It really was ridiculous.”

… The two sides continued to clash through the day of the wedding, when Visualaz allegedly showed up with a fraction of the equipment the $13,000 contract stipulated, court papers charge.

A year later, the edited movie finally arrived and “it was the worst thing in the world,” Nikchemny said. “I was really, absolutely hysterical and I almost had a nervous breakdown.”

She said the film was just a scattered collection of scenes with no beginning, middle or end.

“There were sitcom clapping sound effects in place of the guests at the wedding clapping,” the lawsuit charged.

… The young mother received the video while pregnant and claimed the distress led to some medical complications. But the emotional toll can last much longer, she added.

“How can I show my son this video?” she asked.

Photography and videography blog PetaPixel joined in, getting a quote from Visualez:

For his part [Visualez owner] Boshoer is refusing to comment on the matter. “We would love to tell our story, but not allowed to make any comments at this time,” he says. “The cinematography in their video should speak for itself. As soon as this is over I will update everyone.”

Then there’s the video above, which is one of apparently several videos Visualez produced of their wedding. But PetaPixel reports that it’s only a “preview,” according to the couple – but it does seem to have audio dubbed over the ceremonial breaking of the glass and wedding clapping. And, really, sitcoms should have effects this good… this is more like a De Beers commercial, which would seem kind of ideal for a wedding.

Oh, darn, so much for “presented without comment.”

Well, while I’m editorializing, I might as well note that I’m kind of shocked. I’ve met Monica once, and spoken with her father a few times. They both seemed like very nice, down to earth people. But, you know what they say: marriage changes people.

What do you think?

Comment policy


  1. Um, that’s an awesome, kick-ass video. Not just well done but really, really well done. Granted, you can’t hear the glass break, but was that stipulated? Would love to hear what they were expecting.

  2. Other than a few possible technical glitches starting around the five minute mark, (which may only be flashes of light from people snapping pictures) I see nothing wrong with the video. It is professionally done. It holds your attention and that is most important. What does she mean that there is no beginning, middle or end?

  3. This seems like a frivolous lawsuit.The video seems perfectly fine to me. I don’t see a problem other than the brides unrealistic expectations.

  4. yea those are flash burns from photographer strobes…

    the video is BEAUTIFUL this is the preview… i would love to see the full edition if its as good as this… this suit is pathetic

  5. The truth is that this isn’t the video! This is what this company calls a trailer. They use it to market their own company essentially on couples dimes. Who would pay 13k for a 14min video? The lawsuit isn’t even about the video as a whole. The video is only the underline subject of the lawsuit. The actual lawsuit is about breach of contract. If they would be looking for some sort of money from it, believe me at a wedding like this they have tens of vendors who some of could cost triple the video. Haven’t you people asked yourself, why not file a lawsuit against any of them? From reading the case file on this, its actually a very very good case. By contract the studio was obligated to show up with 4 video cameras, 4 video camera operators, a camera crane, a certified stedicam operator, a camera operator who was sold to have Hollywood credits as well as produce a 2hr long wedding video. At the end none of that showed up exp the owner of the studio with his wife with two still shot camera’s and a stedicam. The end result was a poorly shot wedding and a video that went for less then an hr (54min based on court files). Needless to say they destroyed the poor couples raw footage and name by releasing the sham video you all watched that they tightly edited for use as marketing across multiple social/video networks. What your all saying is its ok to rip people off..

  6. BTW this is actually not the story. This was a botched version of the story ran by the daily news. The dailymail actually has a more accurate version of this story that still isn’t 100% correct. Its as if these reporter’s don’t read public court files or do any research on the stories they write. And I also know from a friend of mine at a newspaper that they all got slapped with stop orders from showing the actual real film by the studio in question, including the couple..

  7. I’m actually more thankful to you, that you actually read my response then I can describe in words here. At first I too was a hater, but instead of attacking I took the time to actually research the story. This was mainly because I personally have had interactions with this family in the past. Living in this area since the late 70’s I’ve watched this area transform in a massive way. And somehow on many occasions this family has been in some way or another part of that. The idea of thinking this family could be part of something that sounded so (excuse my French) BS killed me and everything I know about them and the things they have done. Perfect example is to think back to Sheepshead bay rd only a few yrs back. It was a street full of nothing but cell phone stores, sushi resturaurants and buildings for lack of better words rundown. The area was almost dead for business. This family trusted enough in it to build a building that looks like it belongs on 5th ave. That building singlehandedly set off a chain reaction that almost completely changed the street and gave it new life. They are active in the community, show face at community broad meetings, played pivotal roles in the attempt to form a merchant circle in the area to attempt to better diversify the area and its businesses and much more. It was during these events that I had the pleasure to meet David, the father in this case. I can even recall speaking to him right after sandy as he pumped a neighbors basement with a pump he purchased before even pumping his own. The rest of the family I’ve met at random times here and there, but the mother and grandmother in this case I first met as a teen when purchasing my sisters prom dress from the old smaller store that was down the street from their new store and they are some of the warmest, kindest people I’ve ever come across. It was all that and knowing all that that cased me to dig deeper for the truth about the people I knew deep down couldn’t be like the media is painting them to be.

  8. This comment needs to be voted to the top. My family has worked with Monica’s dad on numerous occasions and anyone who knows them knows that they are actually quite decent people. It came as a total shock that they would proceed with what seemed like a totally frivolous lawsuit. Like everyone else, I had some choice words for Monica after I read the
    multiple stories about the case, but after digging deeper I now feel
    bad for the family whose name is being dragged through the mud. As expected, this story was skewed and twisted until it became the hilarious piece of entertainment that it is now.

    I don’t blame Ned, or Sheepshead Bites, for republishing the words of the Post or the Daily News, but I think it would be an awesome service to the people of our community to dig a little deeper and get the complete story behind the case. Don’t be an accomplice to the bullshit spreading “news source” that is the NY Post and NY Daily News.

  9. I am sure if the actual video looked like the trailer that everyone is seeing there would be no lawsuit. There is definately more to this then people speculate.

  10. Could you please provide a link to the Daily Mail article you referred to. I was not able to find anything. All I saw was a wedding photo story lawsuit about a wedding 8 years ago.

  11. At the very least this is a great, free, advertisement for the photographer. The video is great and they just peaked my interest in giving them my business. This is a sanction worthy, frivolous suit in my opinion.

  12. Did you read Albert Torel’s comments? Read them before you conclude the lawsuit is frivolous. I also noticed the video has been removed.

  13. I’m very sorry.. I’ve tried posting the url both in full and in short version numerous times. keeps getting marked as spam for some reason. seems to me maybe the studio already found this article and keeps flagging it.. 🙁

  14. Wow. That is really some excellent defense work. However, none of it addresses that there is a law suit, and that the bride in this case spent (aprox) 13K to have a video made of her wedding.
    Yes, it’s a very pretty building, but I miss Schiff Furniture. Might not have been as pretty, but they did have good furniture, which I tend to need more then I do a bridal dress.
    This suit and the publicity from it, IS to some people, silly, and yes, like it or not, something to be made fun of. I for one, cannot drum up a drop of sympathy for her plight.

    Oh, and I’ve lived in Sheepshead Bay since 1964. Bet I’ve seen more changes then you have….

  15. So what is your point? He certainly did talk about the lawsuit and the reasons for it. And what does it matter that she spent $13 K for a video if the contract was not adhered to as the suit alleges? Sounds like you are just jealous that you can’t afford to pay that much for a video. How she decides to spend or waste her money is her business, not yours.

  16. Absolutely not. I do not know the individuals involved and have never had any contact with them.

    And how am I defensive and accusatory? I was just responding to your comment implying she should have not spent 13K for a video, stating that was not your decision to make.

    In fact I was on your side after I saw the video. I even wrote that it looks very professional. But After I read more I changed my mind. Perhaps it is because I spent several years working in a Contracts Department, so I know what breach of contract means which apparently you either have no concept of or just choose to ignore.

  17. How were you accusatory…. ‘sounds like you are jealous’
    Defensive….. Maybe I’m reading into it. To me, your reply feels hostile and defensive.

    I did not write that she should not have spent HER money on a video, I stated my opinion. I did say that I thought it was silly. Opinion. Mine. She chose to have her personal business become public, I commented. You don’t agree. Fine, you don’t have to (obviously), but you don’t need to correct me, condescend or tell me that I don’t have the right to do so.

    As for your professional opinion, I’m going to just let it go as there is no proof. And, I don’t really care.

    I saw the video when it was up. I’ve read several accounts of this story now, and I still have the same opinion…. Silly.

    I’m just sayin’………

  18. I guess karma is a bitch and you get what you deserve. Monica and her father are awful people and employers. A bad wedding video is the least of what they deserve. Also, they are the type of people who would milk the situation to get as much money out of it as possible.

  19. It doesn’t matter if they breached their contract or failed to live up to her expectations… there is absolutely no grounds for $100k in damages. At the very most, you will get a full refund, and possibly compensation for court costs. These are signs of entitled spoiled brats who think they deserve hundreds of thousands of dollars because their feelings were hurt. Ain’t gonna happen purebreds. If these people charged $12,000 to produce a video, you can bet they’ll have a dependable contract. Jeesh. Rich people fighting rich people. Gross.

  20. They may have breached their contract, but these people aren’t entitled to anything beyond a partial or complete refund. As far as I know, there is no precedent for damages in situations like these. These people are spoiled and think they deserve compensation for emotional distress. First world problems of the super rich… we should all weep.

Comments are closed.