Preview
RETURN DATE: DECEMBER 26, 2023 SUPERIOR COURT
GARRISON GAZVODA and GRANT GAZVODA JD OF NEW HAVEN
Vv. AT NEW HAVEN
NICHOLAS FORTE and NOVEMBER 20, 2023
MAIORANO FUNERAL HOME INC.
COMPLAINT
FIRST COUNT - Interference With Right To Custody Of Remains (Nicholas Forte)
1. The plaintiff Garrison Gazvoda (Garrison) is currently a resident of New Hampshire, but
in November 2021 lived at 20 Fleetwood Drive, Waterbury, Connecticut.
2. The plaintiff Grant Gazvoda (Grant) is currently a resident of South Carolina.
3. The defendant Nicholas Forte (the defendant or Mr. Forte) is currently a resident of East
Lyme, Connecticut, but in November 2021 lived at 20 Fleetwood Drive, Waterbury, Connecticut.
4. At the time of her death on November 21, 2021, the decedent Gina Gazvoda (Gina or the
decedent) lived at 20 Fleetwood Drive, Waterbury, Connecticut.
5. Mr. Forte reported he found Gina’s remains at home.
6. The decedent was Garrison's and Grant's mother.
7. The decedent and Mr. Forte lived together, but were not married.
8. At her death, the decedent did not have a document designating who would have
custody and control of the disposition of her body upon death.
9. Until her death, the decedent had suffered from an undetermined muscle disorder and
low body mass for over ten years.
9A. This affliction should not have caused her death.
10. The decedent had told Garrison that in the event of her death, she wanted an autopsy,
because her affliction was believed to be genetic, and an autopsy would be a means of diagnosing
and helping Garrison and Grant with the affliction.
11. Grant and Garrison exhibit symptoms similar to the decedent's, and testing on them
continues.
12. On the night of 11/23/2021 (two days after Gina died) Garrison and Grant witnessed Mr.
Forte filling out Gina's death certificate, including the causes of death.
13. That same night, Garrison and Grant both told Mr. Forte they wanted an autopsy, and
that the decedent had stated that if anything happened to her at a young age (she died at 57), she
wanted an autopsy for Grant and Garrison's sake, since her condition was expected to be genetic.
14. Nick argued back, saying the decedent would not be getting autopsy.
15. The decedent was cremated the next day (11/24/2021) at Mr. Forte’s direction to
Maiorano Funeral Home, without notice to Grant and Garrison.
16. Mr. Forte authorized the cremation, indicating on the death certificate that he was “Legal
Custodian”, even though he wasn't, and even though the decedent's sons (the plaintiffs) had
argued for an autopsy.
17. In having the decedent cremated as above, Mr. Forte interfered with the plaintiffs’ right
to custody of the decedent's remains.
18. The plaintiffs claim damages.
SECOND COUNT - Wilfull, Wanton & Reckless (Nicholas Forte)
1-18. Paragraphs 1 through 18 of the First Count are incorporated into this Second Count.
19. The foregoing conduct of the defendant Mr. Forte was willful, wanton and carried out
with the reckless disregard for the interests and rights of the plaintiffs, causing damages for which
the defendant is liable.
THIRD COUNT — Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress (Nicholas Forte)
1-18. Paragraphs 1 through 18 of the First Count are incorporated into this Third Count.
19. In having the decedent cremated as above, Mr. Forte’s conduct created an
unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiffs emotional distress.
20. His conduct was severe enough to cause the distress and resulting illness or bodily
harm.
21. The improper handling of their mother’s remains caused this distress and harm.
22. Knowing that the autopsy could’ve helped with their own affliction, also contributed to
this distress and harm.
23. The defendant had been told of the decedent's and the plaintiffs’ wishes for an autopsy
and the rationale for having one conducted, such that the distress and harm were foreseeable on
his part.
24. The plaintiffs claim damages.
FOURTH COUNT - Willful, Wanton & Reckless (Nicholas Forte)
1-24. Paragraphs 1 through 24 of the Third Count are incorporated into this Fourth Count.
25. The foregoing conduct of the defendant Mr. Forte was willful, wanton and carried out
with the reckless disregard for the interests and rights of the plaintiffs, causing damages for which
the defendant is liable.
FIFTH COUNT - Interference With Right To Custody Of Remains (Maiorano Funeral Home)
1-16. Paragraphs 1 through 16 of the First Count are incorporated into this Fifth Count.
17. The defendant Maiorano Funeral Home Inc. (Maiorano FH) is a Connecticut
corporation with offices in Waterbury, Connecticut.
18. Maiorano FH relied on representations of Mr. Forte in having the decedent cremated as
above.
19. This reliance by Maiorano FH was not reasonable, because there was no document
designating who would have custody and control of the decedent's remains, and even though the
decedent and Mr. Forte were not married.
20. As such, Maiorano FH interfered with the plaintiffs’ right to custody of the decedent's
remains.
SIXTH COUNT — Negligence (Maiorano Funeral Home)
1-20. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of the Fifth Count are incorporated into this Sixth Count.
21. CGS §45a-318 imposes a duty under which Maiorano Funeral Home was to have been
reasonable in agreeing to carry out cremation of the decedent’s remains.
21. Maiorano FH breached this duty, because there was no document designating who
would have custody and control of the decedent's remains, and because the decedent and Mr.
Forte were not married.
22. The plaintiffs claim damages.
SEVENTH COUNT — Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress (Maiorano Funeral Home)
1-19. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of the Fifth Count are incorporated into this Seventh Count.
20. In having the decedent cremated as above, Maiorano FH conduct created an
unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiffs emotional distress.
21. This conduct was also severe enough to cause the distress and resulting illness or
bodily harm.
22. The improper handling of the plaintiffs’ mother’s remains caused this distress and harm.
23. Knowing that the autopsy could’ve helped with their own affliction, also contributed to
this distress and harm.
24. Maiorano FH is in the funeral home industry and deals with the importance of proper
handing of remains every day, such that the distress was foreseeable on its part.
25. The plaintiffs claim damages.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs prey this Court enter an Order:
1 Awarding the plaintiff damages within the jurisdiction of the Court;
2 Awarding the plaintiff exemplary or punitive damages, as at common law (as to the Second
and Fourth Counts against Mr. Forte);
Awarding an order of weekly payments;
Awarding the plaintiff such other and further relief as in law or equity may apply.
THE PLAINTI
BY
Attorney Aurbouily, thé firm
Loughlin Law;
221 North Main Street
Wallingford, Connecticut 06492
Telephone (203) 265-3030
Juris No. 432177
Their Attorneys
RETURN DATE: DECEMBER 26, 2023 SUPERIOR COURT
GARRISON GAZVODA and GRANT GAZVODA JD OF NEW HAVEN
Vv AT NEW HAVEN
NICHOLAS FORTE and NOVEMBER 20, 2023
MAIORANO FUNERAL HOME INC.
STATEMENT RE: AMOUNT IN DEMAND
The Plaintiffs in this action state that the amount of money damages based upon the foregoing
complaint is more than Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs.
THE PLAINTIF,
BY
Attorney Jim LoughlinforAhe firm
Loughlin Law, PC
221 North Main Street
Wallingford, Connecticut 06492
Telephone (203) 265-3030
Juris No. 432177
Their Attorneys
Preview
RETURN DATE: DECEMBER 26, 2023 SUPERIOR COURT GARRISON GAZVODA and GRANT GAZVODA JD OF NEW HAVEN Vv. AT NEW HAVEN NICHOLAS FORTE and NOVEMBER 20, 2023 MAIORANO FUNERAL HOME INC. COMPLAINT FIRST COUNT - Interference With Right To Custody Of Remains (Nicholas Forte) 1. The plaintiff Garrison Gazvoda (Garrison) is currently a resident of New Hampshire, but in November 2021 lived at 20 Fleetwood Drive, Waterbury, Connecticut. 2. The plaintiff Grant Gazvoda (Grant) is currently a resident of South Carolina. 3. The defendant Nicholas Forte (the defendant or Mr. Forte) is currently a resident of East Lyme, Connecticut, but in November 2021 lived at 20 Fleetwood Drive, Waterbury, Connecticut. 4. At the time of her death on November 21, 2021, the decedent Gina Gazvoda (Gina or the decedent) lived at 20 Fleetwood Drive, Waterbury, Connecticut. 5. Mr. Forte reported he found Gina’s remains at home. 6. The decedent was Garrison's and Grant's mother. 7. The decedent and Mr. Forte lived together, but were not married. 8. At her death, the decedent did not have a document designating who would have custody and control of the disposition of her body upon death. 9. Until her death, the decedent had suffered from an undetermined muscle disorder and low body mass for over ten years. 9A. This affliction should not have caused her death. 10. The decedent had told Garrison that in the event of her death, she wanted an autopsy, because her affliction was believed to be genetic, and an autopsy would be a means of diagnosing and helping Garrison and Grant with the affliction. 11. Grant and Garrison exhibit symptoms similar to the decedent's, and testing on them continues. 12. On the night of 11/23/2021 (two days after Gina died) Garrison and Grant witnessed Mr. Forte filling out Gina's death certificate, including the causes of death. 13. That same night, Garrison and Grant both told Mr. Forte they wanted an autopsy, and that the decedent had stated that if anything happened to her at a young age (she died at 57), she wanted an autopsy for Grant and Garrison's sake, since her condition was expected to be genetic. 14. Nick argued back, saying the decedent would not be getting autopsy. 15. The decedent was cremated the next day (11/24/2021) at Mr. Forte’s direction to Maiorano Funeral Home, without notice to Grant and Garrison. 16. Mr. Forte authorized the cremation, indicating on the death certificate that he was “Legal Custodian”, even though he wasn't, and even though the decedent's sons (the plaintiffs) had argued for an autopsy. 17. In having the decedent cremated as above, Mr. Forte interfered with the plaintiffs’ right to custody of the decedent's remains. 18. The plaintiffs claim damages. SECOND COUNT - Wilfull, Wanton & Reckless (Nicholas Forte) 1-18. Paragraphs 1 through 18 of the First Count are incorporated into this Second Count. 19. The foregoing conduct of the defendant Mr. Forte was willful, wanton and carried out with the reckless disregard for the interests and rights of the plaintiffs, causing damages for which the defendant is liable. THIRD COUNT — Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress (Nicholas Forte) 1-18. Paragraphs 1 through 18 of the First Count are incorporated into this Third Count. 19. In having the decedent cremated as above, Mr. Forte’s conduct created an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiffs emotional distress. 20. His conduct was severe enough to cause the distress and resulting illness or bodily harm. 21. The improper handling of their mother’s remains caused this distress and harm. 22. Knowing that the autopsy could’ve helped with their own affliction, also contributed to this distress and harm. 23. The defendant had been told of the decedent's and the plaintiffs’ wishes for an autopsy and the rationale for having one conducted, such that the distress and harm were foreseeable on his part. 24. The plaintiffs claim damages. FOURTH COUNT - Willful, Wanton & Reckless (Nicholas Forte) 1-24. Paragraphs 1 through 24 of the Third Count are incorporated into this Fourth Count. 25. The foregoing conduct of the defendant Mr. Forte was willful, wanton and carried out with the reckless disregard for the interests and rights of the plaintiffs, causing damages for which the defendant is liable. FIFTH COUNT - Interference With Right To Custody Of Remains (Maiorano Funeral Home) 1-16. Paragraphs 1 through 16 of the First Count are incorporated into this Fifth Count. 17. The defendant Maiorano Funeral Home Inc. (Maiorano FH) is a Connecticut corporation with offices in Waterbury, Connecticut. 18. Maiorano FH relied on representations of Mr. Forte in having the decedent cremated as above. 19. This reliance by Maiorano FH was not reasonable, because there was no document designating who would have custody and control of the decedent's remains, and even though the decedent and Mr. Forte were not married. 20. As such, Maiorano FH interfered with the plaintiffs’ right to custody of the decedent's remains. SIXTH COUNT — Negligence (Maiorano Funeral Home) 1-20. Paragraphs 1 through 20 of the Fifth Count are incorporated into this Sixth Count. 21. CGS §45a-318 imposes a duty under which Maiorano Funeral Home was to have been reasonable in agreeing to carry out cremation of the decedent’s remains. 21. Maiorano FH breached this duty, because there was no document designating who would have custody and control of the decedent's remains, and because the decedent and Mr. Forte were not married. 22. The plaintiffs claim damages. SEVENTH COUNT — Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress (Maiorano Funeral Home) 1-19. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of the Fifth Count are incorporated into this Seventh Count. 20. In having the decedent cremated as above, Maiorano FH conduct created an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiffs emotional distress. 21. This conduct was also severe enough to cause the distress and resulting illness or bodily harm. 22. The improper handling of the plaintiffs’ mother’s remains caused this distress and harm. 23. Knowing that the autopsy could’ve helped with their own affliction, also contributed to this distress and harm. 24. Maiorano FH is in the funeral home industry and deals with the importance of proper handing of remains every day, such that the distress was foreseeable on its part. 25. The plaintiffs claim damages. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs prey this Court enter an Order: 1 Awarding the plaintiff damages within the jurisdiction of the Court; 2 Awarding the plaintiff exemplary or punitive damages, as at common law (as to the Second and Fourth Counts against Mr. Forte); Awarding an order of weekly payments; Awarding the plaintiff such other and further relief as in law or equity may apply. THE PLAINTI BY Attorney Aurbouily, thé firm Loughlin Law; 221 North Main Street Wallingford, Connecticut 06492 Telephone (203) 265-3030 Juris No. 432177 Their Attorneys RETURN DATE: DECEMBER 26, 2023 SUPERIOR COURT GARRISON GAZVODA and GRANT GAZVODA JD OF NEW HAVEN Vv AT NEW HAVEN NICHOLAS FORTE and NOVEMBER 20, 2023 MAIORANO FUNERAL HOME INC. STATEMENT RE: AMOUNT IN DEMAND The Plaintiffs in this action state that the amount of money damages based upon the foregoing complaint is more than Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. THE PLAINTIF, BY Attorney Jim LoughlinforAhe firm Loughlin Law, PC 221 North Main Street Wallingford, Connecticut 06492 Telephone (203) 265-3030 Juris No. 432177 Their Attorneys