A Merrimack County Superior Court jury returned a $16 million verdict on June 30, 2026, in favor of Kristy Gesse, a survivor who alleged the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services negligently placed her at Saddleback Mountain Retreat, a contracted group home in Deerfield, where she was repeatedly sexually abused as a teenager in 1992 [1][2]. The case proceeded on claims of negligence in child placement and breach of fiduciary duty against DHHS [2]. It is the second case arising from a sprawling litigation involving more than 1,600 lawsuits alleging abuse at state-operated and state-contracted youth facilities to reach trial [1].
The jury found that Peter Tsetsilas, the now-deceased operator of Saddleback Mountain Retreat, raped Gesse 106 times during her placement at the facility [1][2]. Jurors apportioned fault among four parties: Tsetsilas at 60 percent, DHHS at 25 percent, Beverly Tsetsilas at 10 percent, and the defunct group home entity at 5 percent [2][3]. The total damages award of $16 million reflects the full compensatory figure, with no punitive component [2]. Based on the apportionment finding, DHHS bears direct financial responsibility for $4 million of the award [1][2].
The apportionment ruling carries significant practical consequence for the remaining contractor-home cases in the broader litigation. Because DHHS was assigned only a minority share of fault despite its placement decision, the ruling may constrain the state's exposure in cases where the direct abuse was committed by contracted-facility operators rather than state employees [1][2]. Plaintiff's counsel David Vicinanzo and Nathan Warecki announced they will appeal the apportionment ruling to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, contending that the allocation understates the state's responsibility [1][3]. Defense counsel Samuel Garland of the New Hampshire Department of Justice represented DHHS at trial [3].
The verdict is reported to be among the largest personal injury awards in New Hampshire history [1]. No sentencing phase applies, as this is a civil proceeding. The appeal will determine whether the fault percentages are revised before any remaining cases in the broader docket proceed to trial, making the Supreme Court's eventual ruling a practical template for liability allocation across the litigation [1][2].