My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - NON-AGENDA
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2020
>
09/01/2020
>
CORRESPONDENCE - NON-AGENDA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2020 10:57:06 AM
Creation date
8/31/2020 10:50:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Date
9/1/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
145
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
SHEET 41 PAGE 161 _ <br />1 IS THAT RIGHT? <br />R. Leonard, C.S.R., Inc. <br />Certified Shorthand Reporters <br />818.995.2449 <br />PAGE <br />:45:13 <br />2 <br />A I -- YES. AND T THINK THERE WAS ALSO ONE <br />3 <br />ABANDONED SKI LODGE UP IN TAHOE THAT EITHER HIM OR <br />4 <br />CARLOS, MAYBE THEY WERE WORKING TOGETHER, I DON'T <br />5 <br />RECALL, WHERE THEY WERE TRYING TO GET ME THE PROSPECTUS <br />6 <br />AND THEY HAD MADE SOME SORT OF OFFER TOWARDS IT. I <br />i <br />THINK IT, IT'S ONE OF THE HIGH -END RESORTS, I CAN'T <br />8 <br />RECALL. <br />:15:13 <br />9 <br />Q AND THEN WHEN DID MR, DALESANDRO CONTACT YOU <br />10 <br />ABOUT THE VDC AT THE MET? <br />:45:13 <br />11 <br />MR. BISNO: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THIS WITNESS'S <br />12 <br />TESTIMONY. <br />:45:13 <br />13 <br />THE WITNESS: I THINK MY ATTORNEY IS ACCURATE. I <br />14 <br />HAD KNOWN ABOUT THE DEAL. I THINK EVERYBODY KNEW ABOUT <br />15 <br />THE DEAL. THERE ARE EIGHT -BY -EIGHT BILLBOARDS ON THREE <br />16 <br />SIDES OF THE PROPERTY. BUT WHEN DID HE BRING IT TO MY <br />17 <br />ATTENTION THAT IT HAD -- WAS AVAILABLE? IT WAS, I <br />18 <br />BELIEVE, THE BEGINNING OF DECEMBER, 2010. <br />:45:13 <br />19 <br />Q BY MR. RUBINER: DURING THE TIMES THAT YOU <br />20 <br />AUTHDRIZED MR, DALESANDRO TO MAKE OFFERS ON YOUR BEHALF <br />21 <br />BETWEEN OCTOBER AND DECEMBER OF 2010, HAD YOU EVER <br />22 <br />DISCUSSED WITH MR. DALESANDRO HOW HE WOULD BE <br />23 <br />COMPENSATED? <br />15:13 <br />24 <br />A THERE WERE A VARIETY OF CONVERSATIONS, YES. <br />45:13 <br />25 <br />Q WHEN WAS THE FIRST CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH <br />:13 <br />45:13 <br />:45:13 <br />:45:13 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />1D <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />16 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />163 <br />WERE SOME BANE -OWNED DEALS. I THINK THEY WERE ALL BANK - <br />OWNED DEALS. AND I SAID "I'M INTERESTED. GO MAKE AN <br />OFFER ON MY BEHALF ON THESE DEALS." <br />I DON'T KNOW WHEN HE MADE THE OFFER, DID AN <br />AGREEMENT LIKE THIS SHOW UP, DID IT COME BEFORE OR <br />AFTER. IF YOU WANT TO ASK ME A SPECIFIC QUESTION I CAN <br />SEE IF I CAN GIVE YOU A SPECIFIC AIRIER. <br />Q DO YOU RECALL AT ANY TIME DISCUSSING THE <br />COMPENSATION WITH MR. DALESANDRO? <br />MR. EISNO: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO TDME. <br />OBJECTION, VAGUE AS TO DEAL. <br />THE WITNESS: I AGREE. IT'S TOO VAGUE. <br />Q BY MB. RUBINER: WHEN YOU SAID TWO TO FIVE <br />DEALS, WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THE TERM "DEAL"? <br />A THEY WERE PROJECTS, EITHER A VACANT LOT OR AN <br />EXISTING ASSET. <br />Q USING THAT AS THE, AS 'DEAL," DO YOU RECALL <br />EVER DISCUSSING THE COMPENSATION THAT MR. DALESANDRO <br />RECEIVED AS IT RELATES TO ANY OF THE TWO TO FIVE DEALS <br />HE BROUGHT TO YOU? <br />A YOU RION, YOU LOOK AT SO MANY DEALS, YOU HAVE <br />SO MANY BROKERS AROUND YOU. I THINK THERE MIGHT HAVE <br />BEEN A DEAL IN GLENDALE BUT I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE THAT <br />WAS THROUGH HIM. I MIGHT HAVE SIGNED A FEE AGREEMENT, A <br />POINT OR TWO, BUT I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT WAS HIS <br />PAGE 162 PAGE 164 <br />1 MR. DALESANDRO DISCUSSING HOW HE WOULD BE COMPENSATED? 1 DEAL. I REMEMBER THERE WAS A DEAL IN TEXAS, I THINK IT <br />09:45:13 2 A WHEN? WHICH DEAL? 2 WAS AN OLD WALMART OR WOOLWORTH. IT WAS A WAREHOUSE AHD <br />09:45:13 3 Q SO DID YOU, EACH ONE OF THESE TWO TO FIVE 3 THERE WAS A POTENTIAL OF CONVERTING IT TO MULTI-FAM'.LLY. <br />4 DEALS, DID YOU HAVE A SEPARATE DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW HE 4 AND THAT DEAL WAS DEFINITELY THROUGH HIM. .AND I DON'T <br />5 WOULD BE COMPENSATED? 5 REMEMBER IF I SIGNED AN AGREEMENT FOR THAT DEAL OR NOT. <br />09:15:13 6 A SEAN AND I HAD MOVED FORWARD ON TWO 6 I DON'T KNDW, <br />7 UNSUCCESSFUL VENTURES, ONE WAS, LIKE I SAID, A WEEK OR 09:45:13 7 Q WELL, DO YOU RECALL EVER DISCUSSING HOW <br />8 TWO WITH AN AGREEMENT. I ASSUMED AS HIS PROPENSITY OF 8 MR. DALESANDRO WOULD BE COMPENSATED BETWEEN OCTOBER AND <br />9 DOING -- I MEAN, HE WOULD THROW THESE AGREEMENTS AROUND 9 DECEMBER OF 2010? <br />10 ALMOST INSTANTLY SEEMING TO PROTECT HIS INTEREST, HIS 09:45:13 10 A IT WAS CLEAR TO ME THAT WE WERE GOING TO PAPER <br />11 RIGHTS. 50 I KNEW ON ANY DEAL I WAS GOING TO SEE A 11 THE AGREEMENT AS WE HAD ON THE TWO DEALS AND SO, YES, HE <br />12 DOCUMENT THAT LOOKS VERY MUCH LIKE EXHIBIT 7 FROM HIS 12 WOULD SEND OFFERS FOR COMPENSATION AND THEN WE WOULD <br />13 COMPANY ASKING ME TO EXECUTE IT AND I DO RECALL THAT 13 DISCUSS 'WHERE WE WERE GOING TO TAKE THIS. <br />14 COMING THROUGH ON A COUPLE OF THESE SUBSEQUENT DEALS 09:45:13 14 Q WHEN MR, DALESANDRO RAISED THE VDC AT THE MET <br />15 YOU'RE REFERRING TO. 15 WITH YOU IN DECEMBER OF 2010, DID YOU DISCUSS HOW <br />09:45:13 16 Q DO YOU RECALL ANY DISCUSSIUNS ABOUT IT? 16 MR. DALESANDRO WOULD BE COMPENSATED? <br />09:15:13 11 A YES. 09:45:13 17 MR. BISNO: OBJECTION. THAT'S NOT THE TESTIMONY <br />09:45:13 18 Q WHEN IS THE FIRST DISCUSSION THAT YOU RECALL? 18 THAT -- THAT PREMISE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS WITNESS'S <br />09:45:13 19 A AGAIN, WHICH DEAL? 19 PRIOR TESTIMONY. <br />09:45:13 20 Q THE FIRST DEAL. 09:45:13 20 Q BY MR. RUBINER: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. <br />09:45:13 2I A WHICH IS THE FIRST DEAL? 09:45:13 21 A I THINK IT'S INACCURATE TO SAY VDC AT THE MET <br />09:15:13 22 Q BETWEEN OCTOBER AND DECEMBER OF 1010. YOU SAID 22 BECAUSE IT'S A NAME MY WIFE CALLED THE PROJECT TO FILE <br />23 THERE WERE TWO TO FIVE DEALS. THE FIRST DEAL? 23 THE SPE FOR AND THAT CANE WAY AFTER THIS TIME PERIOD <br />09:15:13 24 A AGAIN, I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF THE ORDER OR 24 WE'RE REFERRING 10. <br />25 SEQUENCE OF WHEN THESE THINGS HAPPENED. AGAIN, THERE 09:45:13 25 BUT IF YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE MET PROJECT, <br />1621 1 169 <br />Dalesandro vs. Ogulnick <br />Deposition of Ryan Andrew Ogulnick, Vol. 1 <br />August 13, 2012 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.