COUNSEL STATEMENTS · SOURCE CLASSIFICATION

Documented conflicts, not findings of guilt.

This review collects 13 contradiction-flagged statements, drawn from a 140-statement source log, that cluster into four pairs. Each pair is tied to a dated record. The conflicts are presented as conflicts among statements. They are not a court finding, a grievance determination, or a conclusion that any person knowingly made a false statement.

PAIR A · SWORN RECORD

Signature-comparison objection, then lay usage

Source: Kate Cavanaugh Forte deposition transcript, March 11, 2025, NNH-CV23-6138366-S.

What the transcript records

At 16:9–10, counsel objected: “Because she’s not an expert and there’s no foundation.”
At 16:18–21, he repeated an objection “to the fact she is not an expert and lack of foundation.”
At 25:23–24, he objected “to the form of the question as far as match.”
At 37:23–38:1, he asked: “And by our untrained naked eyes here, not being handwriting experts, you would agree with me that those are not identical versions of your signature, correct?”
At 38:22–24, he said: “And as far as my eyes can tell, they appear to be very different on the same page, correct?”
At 39:8–12, he referred to “drastic differences or subtle differences, depending on whoever’s opinion they may be, in the four different versions of your signature and Mark’s signature that we’ve just compared.”

What this does not establish

A ruling on the objections, or a finding that any signature is genuine or forged.
Expert handwriting conclusions. The quoted questions and answers are lay comparisons on the record.
Professional-misconduct findings.

PAIR B · COURT RECORD + FILING

July 2019 will stipulated fraudulent, then later presented

Sources: April 22, 2026 Waterbury Probate decrees in 21-01204, and the August 6, 2026 PC-200 petition.

What the records show

The April 22, 2026 will-contest decree records: “The parties stipulate that the original Will dated July 28, 2019 admitted to Probate, is fraudulent.” The court revoked that will, removed Nicholas Forte as executor, and appointed Edward Duffy as administrator.
A PC-200 petition dated August 6, 2026, in the Estate of Gina Marie Gazvoda, presents for probate a will dated July 28, 2019, with a certification by Robert S. Kolesnik, Jr., as attorney for the petitioner.

What this does not establish

That the instrument attached to the August 6 petition is, without further comparison, the identical document revoked on April 22, 2026.
A later court ruling on that petition, or a finding that the filing was unlawful.
Responsibility for Gina’s death.

PAIR C · EMAIL + DEPOSITION + PLEADING

Credit-card basis called mistaken, then retained in an amended pleading

Sources: December 6, 2024 email from Robert S. Kolesnik Jr. to opposing counsel; Garrison Gazvoda deposition excerpts, Exhibit V, February 10, 2025, at 139:5–11; and Exhibit P, the amended cross-complaint, in the Halloran & Sage grievance packet (AnswerCavanaugh.pdf).

What the records show

On December 6, 2024, counsel wrote that he intended to amend the civil-theft and unjust-enrichment allegations because he “mis-interpreted the facts originally described months ago by my client,” and that the client was “lawfully in possession of the credit card but he was not authorized to run up all the personal charges he did.”
At Exhibit V, 139:5–11, counsel stated on the record: “you are correct that the complaint is mistaken insofar as how you obtained the credit card,” and that he did “need to revise the complaint.”
The amended cross-complaint in Exhibit P still alleges that Grant and/or Garrison Gazvoda committed civil theft and were unjustly enriched, while recasting possession as authorized “for emergencies only.”

What this does not establish

The text of the original, unamended cross-complaint, which has not been located as a standalone file.
The truth of the remaining unauthorized-charge allegations, which remain pleadings rather than findings.
A court decision on those counts.

PAIR D · ATTORNEY LETTER

Witness affidavits “believed signed” and “have not signed”

Source: July 28, 2026 letter from Robert S. Kolesnik Jr. to Judge Vaccarelli, Re: Estate of Gina Gazvoda 21-01204.

What the letter says

Counsel wrote: “Unbeknownst to us until today, the Witnesses to the execution of Gina Gazvoda’s Will have not signed their affidavits, although we believed they were signed some time ago.”
The same letter stated that counsel had reached out for the signatures and would file a Petition of Will upon receipt.

What this does not establish

Which testamentary instrument the letter refers to, or the identities of the witnesses, beyond what the letter itself states.
That any affidavit was concealed, or that a later petition or affidavit was false.
A court finding about will execution or witness conduct.

Responsible-use notice: This page reports documented conflicts among dated records. It does not accuse counsel, a party, or a witness of perjury, fraud, or any crime. Those conclusions require additional evidence and lawful adjudication.

CONTINUE THE REVIEW

Return to the classified case-status dashboard.

Readers should consult the underlying records, preserve context, and avoid treating a conflict among statements as a final legal finding.

Back to case status Publication standards