Laserfiche WebLink
SHEET <br />T <br />2 <br />3 <br />45:13 4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />:15 13 7 <br />:4513 8 <br />9 <br />45:13 10 <br />45:13 1. <br />45:13 12 <br />45:13 13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />:15:13 16 <br />17 <br />45:13 18 <br />45:13 19 <br />45:13 20 <br />21 <br />15 13 22 <br />45:13 23 <br />:15 13 24 <br />:15 13 25 <br />R. Leonard, C.S.R., Inc. <br />Certified Shorthand Reporters <br />818.995.2449 <br />17 PAGE 65 PAGE 67 <br />DEFINITIVE DEFINITION BUT FOR ME YOU HAVE AN EXISTING 09:45:13 1 <br />STRUCTURE AND IT'S UNDERUTILIZED AND YOU DETERMINE IF -- 09:45:13 2 <br />WHAT THE HIGHEST AND BEST VALUE IS. 09:45:13 3 <br />Q SO IN ADDITION TO YOUR WORK FOR THE ROCHESTER 09:45:13 4 <br />SITE, YOU ASSISTED MR. BENCHAY IN MANAGING SOME OF HIS 5 <br />PERSONAL AFFAIRS AS HE WAS GETTING OLDER -- 03:45:13 6 <br />MR, BIEED: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT. 09:45:13 7 <br />Q BY MR. RUBINER: - BETWEEN 2000 AND 2005; IS 09:45:13 B <br />THAT RIGHT? <br />MR. BISNO: PARDON ME, <br />OBJECTION. RELEVANCE. <br />THE WITNESS: I THINK IT WENT TO 2005 AND INTO <br />2006. LEE AND I ACQUIRED ANOTHER SITE IN SANTA MONICA, <br />APARTMENT BUILDING IN BRENTWOOD. WE DID A NUMBER OF <br />THINGS, <br />Q BY MR. RUBINER: AT SOMZ POINT DID YOU STOP <br />DOING WORK WITH M&M INVESTMENTS? <br />A I DID. <br />Q WHEN WAS THAT? <br />A THERE WAS SOME -- WE HAD SOME DISPUTE AND I <br />THINK THAT WAS IN 2006. <br />Q YOU HAD A DISPUTE WITH MR, BENCHAY? <br />A YES. <br />Q WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE DISPUTE? <br />MR. BISKO: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE, <br />45:13 <br />45:13 <br />45:13 <br />15 13 <br />45:13 <br />45:13 <br />45:13 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />25 <br />Q NOW, YOU SAID YOU GOT SUED PERSONALLY? <br />MR. HISAO: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE, <br />THE WITNESS: YES. <br />Q BY MR. RUBINER: ➢O YOU RECALL WHERE THAT <br />LAWSUIT WAS FILED? <br />MR. BISNO: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE. <br />THE WITNESS: LA COUNTY. <br />Q BY MR. RUBINER: DO YOU RECALL WHAT THE CLAIMS <br />WERE AGAINST YOU? <br />A NO. <br />Q DO YOU RECALL IF THERE WAS A CLAIM THAT YOU <br />MADE FALSE STATEMENTS? <br />A T DON'T RECALL. <br />Q DO YOU RECALL WHO THE PARTY WAS THAT SUED YOU? <br />A DARREN WEINGARTEN. <br />Q DID YOU KNOW MR. WEINGARTEN PRIOR TO BEING SUED <br />BY HIM? <br />A YES, <br />Q DO YOU RECALL WHAT THE CONTEXT WAS THAT YOU :4E'. <br />MR. WEINGARTEN? <br />MR, BISNO: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE. <br />THE WITNESS: HE WAS A FRIEND OF MY BROTHER'S. <br />Q BY MR. RUBINER: DID MR. WEINGARTEN INVEST IN <br />MR. KAPLAN'S SEAFOOD BUSINESS? <br />A HE -- <br />PAGE 66 <br />PAGE <br />68 <br />D9:45:13 <br />1 <br />THE WITNESS: GO AHEAD AND ANSWER? <br />09:45:13 <br />1 <br />MR. BISNO: OBJECTION, RELEVANCE, <br />09:45:13 <br />2 <br />MR. BISNO: YEAH, YOU CAN ANSWER. <br />09:45:13 <br />2 <br />THE WITNESS: HE DID, <br />09:15:13 <br />3 <br />THE WITNESS: LEWIS KAFTAN, WHO I HAD MENTIONED TO <br />09:45:13 <br />3 <br />Q BY MR, RUBINER: DID YOU INTRODUCE <br />4 <br />YOU BEFORE, WAS LEE BENCHAY'S SON-IN-LAW. LEE <br />4 <br />MR. WEINGARTEN TO MR. EAPLAN? <br />5 <br />INTRODUCED ME TO LEWIS. LEWIS WAS SHIPPING SOME SORT OF <br />09:45:13 <br />5 <br />MR, BISNO: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE, <br />6 <br />PRODUCE AND SEAFOOD TO VEGAS, <br />09:45:13 <br />6 <br />THE WITNESS: I DID. <br />09:15:13 <br />7 <br />LEE SAID I WANT YOU TO INVEST WITH ME IN THIS <br />09:45:13 <br />7 <br />Q BY MR. RUBINER: DID MR. WEINGARTEN EVER TELL <br />8 <br />THING AND WE DID A NUMBER OF DEALS IN WHICH WE BOTH PUT <br />8 <br />YOU THAT HE BELIEVED YOU -- STRIKE THAT. <br />9 <br />UP MONEY, WE'D GET A RETURN. I THINE WE DID TWO OF <br />09:45:13 <br />9 <br />DO YOU RECALL WHAT THE RESULT OF THE LAWSUIT <br />10 <br />THEM. THE RETURNS WERE ALMOST TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE AND <br />10 <br />WAS? <br />11 <br />EVENTUALLY THE LAST INVESTMENT DIDN'T COME BACK. <br />09:45:13 <br />11 <br />MR, BISNO: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE, <br />09:15:13 <br />12 <br />IT WAS LEE'S FAMILY. LEE AND I SUED LEWIS, WE <br />09:45:13 <br />12 <br />THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE MR. WEINGARTEN HAD PUT IN <br />13 <br />GOT A JUDGMENT. WE BEGAN COLLECTING. AND ONE OF THE <br />13 <br />TO THE DEAL $12,000. HIS STEPFATHER WAS All AGGRESSIVE <br />14 <br />INVESTORS WOUND UP SLING ME BECAUSE THEY SAID I TOLD <br />14 <br />ATTORNEY AND WE DECIDED TO JUST PAY THE $12,000 BACK. <br />15 <br />THEM ABOUT LEWIS KAPLAN AND HIS COMPANY UNITED FOODS AND <br />09:45:13 <br />15 <br />Q BY MR, RUBINER: WHEN YOU SAY "WE," WHO IS THE <br />16 <br />SO I WAS NO. 12 OF 12 DIFFERENT SUITS. <br />16 <br />'WE" YOU'RE REFERRING TO? <br />09:45:13 <br />17 <br />LEE GOT CALLED IN TO A DEPOSITION. HE THOUGHT <br />09:45:13 <br />17 <br />MR. BISNO: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE. <br />18 <br />I SHOULD PAY FOR IT BECAUSE HE HAD WARNED ME THAT THE <br />09:15:13 <br />18 <br />THE WITNESS: AT THE TIME IT WAS J. T. FOX AS MY <br />19 <br />ONLY WAY THIS WOULD WORK PROPERLY IS IF HE CONTROLLED <br />19 <br />ATTORNEY ADVISED ME IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. <br />20 <br />MR. KAPLAN AND SD HE WAS NOT PLEASED THAT SOMEBODY WAS <br />09:45:13 <br />20 <br />Q BY MR. RUBINER: I'M NOT ASKING YOU -- I <br />21 <br />INTRODUCED TO LEWIS AND EITHER HE - I DON'T REMEMBER IF <br />21 <br />UNDERSTAND THAT YOU JUST DISCLOSED TO ME YOUR <br />22 <br />HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT OR JUST OBJECTED TO IT AND SO HE <br />22 <br />COMMUNICATION WITH MR, FOX, BUT WHEN I -- I'LL CAUTION <br />23 <br />WANTED ME TO PAY HIS LEGAL FEES, AND SO I SAID I DON'T <br />23 <br />YOU AS YOUR COUNSEL WILL, AS WELL, TO NOT DISCUSS WITH <br />24 <br />THINK THAT WAS FAIR AND THAT SORT OF SPOILED THE <br />24 <br />ME YOUR COMMUNICATIONS WITH YOUR COUNSEL WHETHER IT'S IN <br />25 <br />RELATIONSHIP. <br />25 <br />THIS CASE OR ANY OTHER CASE. <br />661 <br />68 <br />Dalesandro vs. Ogulnick <br />Deposition of Ryan Andrew Ogulnick, Vol. 1 <br />August 13, 2012 <br />