Zinovy Brodsky - Page 14




                                       - 103 -                                         
          for Mr. Reingatch’s daughter.  In support of that contention,                
          petitioner relies on his self-serving testimony, on which we are             
          not required to, and we shall not, rely.58  On the record before             
          us, we find that petitioner has failed to satisfy his burden of              
          establishing that $119 of the March 19, 1991 deposit represented             
          an advance from Mr. Reingatch for the purchase of a walkman for              
          Mr. Reingatch’s daughter.                                                    
               With respect to the August 22, 1991 deposit of $2,734,                  
          petitioner contends that $1,224 of that deposit, which we have               
          found was derived from a $1,224 check from S&J Co., represented              
          an advance from Mr. Dubrovsky for the purchase at cost of a                  
          television for Mr. Dubrovsky.59  In support of that contention,              
          petitioner relies on his self-serving testimony, on which we are             
          not required to, and we shall not, rely.  On the record before               


               58The record contains no credible documentary evidence                  
          showing that any portion of the Mar. 19, 1991 deposit of $20,119             
          was made with funds received from Mr. Reingatch or that peti-                
          tioner purchased a walkman for Mr. Reingatch’s daughter.  We                 
          infer that no such documentary evidence exists and that, if any              
          such evidence does exist, it would not have substantiated peti-              
          tioner’s claims regarding the alleged $119 advance in question.              
               59Although the record establishes that, during 1986 and as              
          of the time of the further trial in this case, Mr. Dubrovsky was             
          a part owner of S&J Co., the record does not disclose whether Mr.            
          Dubrovsky owned any part of that company on Aug. 22, 1991.  We               
          note that, when questioned about the $1,224 check in question,               
          Mr. Dubrovsky did not remember any such check.  The record                   
          contains no credible documentary evidence showing that petitioner            
          purchased a television for Mr. Dubrovsky.  We infer that no such             
          documentary evidence exists and that, if any such evidence does              
          exist, it would not have substantiated petitioner’s claim that               
          $1,224 of the Aug. 22, 1991 deposit of $2,734 represented an                 
          advance from Mr. Dubrovsky for the purchase of a television for              
          Mr. Dubrovsky.                                                               




Page:  Previous  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011