Zinovy Brodsky - Page 60




                                       - 145 -                                         
          petitioner’s documents for the purpose of establishing that                  
          respondent, through respondent’s counsel, conceded prior to the              
          further trial that petitioner had substantiated the total amounts            
          of expenses relating to the Sanchez Street property that were                
          paid during 1991 and 1992, respectively, and that the only issue             
          remaining for the further trial with respect to those expenses               
          was the extent of petitioner’s ownership interest in that prop-              
          erty.100  Petitioner’s documents consisted primarily of bank                 
          statements and canceled checks from two different bank                       
          accounts,101 as well as a spreadsheet prepared by Mr. Sutton on a            
          date not disclosed by the record that purported to summarize the             


               100On brief, petitioner changes the position that he took at            
          the further trial regarding the purpose for admitting peti-                  
          tioner’s documents into evidence.  Petitioner claims on brief                
          that those documents substantiate the total amounts of expenses              
          with respect to the Sanchez Street property that were paid during            
          1991 and 1992, respectively.  Petitioner does not claim on brief,            
          as he contended at the further trial, that petitioner’s documents            
          establish that respondent conceded at the meeting in question                
          that petitioner had substantiated that those amounts of expenses             
          were paid.  We do not know why petitioner abandons on brief the              
          purpose that he advanced at the further trial for the admission              
          of petitioner’s documents into the record.  In this regard, it is            
          noteworthy that Mr. Sutton testified at the further trial that               
          neither respondent’s counsel nor Mr. Oliveras stated at the                  
          meeting in question that petitioner’s documents established that             
          petitioner was entitled to deduct the claimed Schedule E expenses            
          for 1991 and 1992 relating to the Sanchez Street property.                   
               101The first set of bank statements and canceled checks were            
          statements and checks dated between December 1990 and September              
          1992 with respect to an account owned by Mr. Dubrovsky and two               
          other individuals who were identified on such statements and such            
          checks as Anatoly Kosoy (Mr. Kosoy) and Simon Khachatrian.  The              
          second set of bank statements and canceled checks were statements            
          and checks dated between August 1992 and January 1993 with                   
          respect to an account owned by Mr. Kosoy and an association                  
          identified as the “287 Sanchez St Association”.                              




Page:  Previous  135  136  137  138  139  140  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  149  150  151  152  153  154  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011