CORRESPONDENCE - NON-AGENDA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

R. Leonard, C.S.R., Inc. Certified Shorthand Reporters 818.995.2449 SHEET 16 PAGE 61 PAGE 63 09:15:13 1 Q AND THE DBA WAS FOR YOU PERSONALLY? 1 MANAGEMENT? 09:45:13 2 A I WAS THE SOLE OWNER, IF YOU CAN BE AN OWNER OF 09:45:13 2 MR, BISNO: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE. 3 A USA. I'M NOT SDRE, 09:45:13 3 THE WITNESS: YES. 09:45:13 4 Q AND THIS WAS IN 1999 OR 2000 WHEN YOU OBTAINED 09:45:13 4 Q BY MR. RUBINER: WHAT WERE YOUR DUTIES AND 5 THE SITE AND POT IT OUT FOR AN OFFER? 5 RESPONSIBILITIES IN YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THE MANAGEMENT 09:15:13 6 A IT WAS '99. 6 FROM 2000 TO 2005? 09:45:13 7 Q OKAY, 09:45:13 7 MR. BISNO: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE. 09:45:13 8 DID YOU NEED TO DO ENTITLEMENT WORK ON THE 09:45:13 8 THE WITNESS: TYPICAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, KEEPING 9 ROCHESTER SITE AS YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER WHAT EENTITLEMENT 9 THE PROPERTY LEASED, KEEPING IT WELL 14M NTAINED, HAVING 10 WORK WAS? 10 AN ONSITE MANAGER EMPLOYED DOING HIS JOB. 09:15:13 11 A IT WAS A CONDO CONVERSION PLAY, 09:45:13 11 0 BY MR. RUBINER: ANYTHING ELSE? 09:45:13 12 Q CONVERTING CONDOMINIUMS TO APARTMENTS OR THE 09:45:13 12 MR. BISNO: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE. 13 OTHER WAY AROUND? 09:45:13 13 THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL. 09:45:13 14 A THE OTHER WAY AROUND, 09:45:13 14 Q BY MR. RUBINER: OTHER THAN THE MANAGEMENT, DID 09:45:13 15 Q CONVERTING APARTMENTS TO CONDOMINIUMS? 15 YOU HAVE ANY OTHER INVOLVEMENT WITH THE ROCHESTER SITE D9:45:13 16 A CORRECT. 16 BETWEEN 2000 AND 2005? 09:45:13 17 Q DID YQU NEED TO DO -- DID YOU PERSONALLY WORK 09:45:13 17 A I RECALL AT A CERTAIN POINT BE DECIDED HE 18 WITH THE CITY CONCERNING ANY ZONING ISSUES RELATED TO 18 WANTED TO SELL AND WE TOOK A LOOK AT SOME OFFERS AND I 19 THE ROCHESTER SITE? 19 ADVISED HIM ON THOSE OFFERS BUT NEVER, NEVER CLOSED ON 09:45:13 20 A ZONING ISN'T THE APPROPRIAIE MEANS OF DOING THE 20 THE SITE. 21 CONVERSION. IT'S DONE THROUGH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 09:45:13 21 Q BUT YOU STOPPED WORKING WITH M&M IN 2005? 22 THROUGH A TENTATIVE, THEN A FINAL, THE CITY NEEDS TO 09:45:13 22 MR. BISNO: OBJECTION, RELEVANCE. 23 SIGN OFF ON THAT. BUT IT'S NOT THROUGH A CHANGE OF 09:45:13 23 Q BY MR. RUBINER: IS THAT RIGHT? 24 ZONING, THE ZONING DOESN'T CHANGE. 09:45:13 24 A NO, I WOULDN'T SAY STOPPED. LEE AND I 09:15:13 25 Q DID YOU PERSONALLY DO WORK WITH THE STATE OF 25 CONTINUED TO VET DEALS AND CONSIDER DIFFERENT 611 63 _ PAGE 62 1 CALIFORNIA -- :45:13 2 A YES. :45:13 3 Q -- CONCERNING THE CONVERSION? :45:13 4 A YES. :45:13 5 MR. BISNO: IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU ALLOWED THE 6 QUESTION TO BE COMPLETED. :15:13 7 THE WITNESS: RIGHT. :45:13 B Q BY MR. RUBINER: AND WAS THAT CONVERSION 9 ACCOMPLISHED IN 1999 OR 2000? :45:13 10 A MY RECOLLECTION IS WE NEVER FINISHED THE 11 CONVERSION BECAUSE M&M BOUGHT ME OUT AND IT'S POSSIBLE 12 THEY DID BUT IF THEY DID I DIDN'T FINISH IT AND I 13 DON'T -- MY RECOLLECTION WAS THAT THEY TOLD ME THAT THEY 14 WERE JUST GOING TO KEEP IT AS APARTMENTS, THEY DIDN'T 15 WANT TO DO CONDOS. :15:13 16 Q WHEN DID M&M BUY YOU OUT? :45:13 17 A 2000. :45:13 18 Q FROM 2000 THROUGH 2O05, DID YOU HAVE ANY 19 RESPONSIBILITIES, PERSONALLY, AS IT RELATES TO THE 20 ROCHESTER SITE? :15:13 21 MR. BISNO: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE. :45:13 22 THE GIITNESS: YES. I WAS INVOLVED IN THE 23 MANAGEMENT OF THE PROPERTIES. :45:13 24 Q BY MR. RUBINER: WAS YOUR -- WAS THAT DURING 25 THE ENTIRE TIME FROM 2000 TO 2005 YOU WERE INVOLVED IN PAGE 64 1 INVESTMENTS. WE DID ACQUIRE A PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THE 2 HOLLYWOOD HILLS AND RE -ENTITLED THAT PROPERTY FOR SINGLE 3 FAMILY HOMES. i:45:13 4 Q ➢ID THE PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THE HOLLYWOOD 5 HILLS HAVE A NAME? i:15:13 6 A I ACQUIRED IT UNDER AN SEN. I BELIEVE IT WAS 7 CALLED DEEP DELL, COMMA, LLC BECAUSE THAT WAS THE STREET 8 IT WAS ON, AND LEE HAD A SMALL INVESTMENT IN THAT 9 ENTITY, :45:13 10 Q OKAY, :45:13 11 OTHER THAN YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THE 12 ROCHESTER SITE, DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES 13 BETWEEN 2000 AND 2005 WITH M&M INVESTMENTS? :45:13 14 MR, BISYO: VAGUE AS TO TIME, OBJECTION, 15 RELEVANCE. :45:13 16 THE WITNESS: LEE WAS AN ELDERLY MAN APPROACHING 17 80. LEE WANTED ME TO DISPOSE OF HIS LARGE ESTATE. AT 1B ONE POINT LEE WANTED ME TO ENT-TLE AND DISPOSE OF HIS 19 ESTATE. THERE WAS A NUMBER OF PLAYS THAT WE CONSIDERED, 20 A COUPLE WE DID. IT WAS A LOT OF DIFFERENT DETAILS 21 INVOLVING HIS HOLDINGS. :45:13 22 Q BY MR. RUBINER: OKAY. :45:13 23 AND IN YOUR LAST ANSWER YOU USED THE WORD 24 "PLAYS." 4';HAT DOES THAT MEAN? :45:13 25 A TO ME, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A DEFINITE, Dalesandro vs. Ogulnick Deposition of Ryan Andrew Ogulnick, Vol. 1 August 13, 2012