Zinovy Brodsky - Page 157




                                        - 98 -                                         
          Enterprises represented a business loan from Commonwealth Enter-             
          prises.50  On the record before us, we find that petitioner has              
          failed to carry his burden of establishing that the December 16,             
          1992 deposit at issue represented a business loan from Common-               
          wealth Enterprises.                                                          
               With respect to the January 14, 1993 deposit of $5,000,                 
          petitioner contends that that deposit, which we have found was               
          derived from a $5,000 check from Amuke Group, represented a                  
          business loan from Amuke Group for the purchase of certain                   
          cordless telephones.  Petitioner failed to raise as an issue in              
          petitioner’s further trial memorandum that the January 14, 1993              
          deposit in question represented a business loan from Amuke Group.            
          Accordingly, pursuant to the Court’s March 31, 2000 Order, we                
          shall not address that matter.51                                             

               50We note that petitioner failed to question Mr. Vulis                  
          specifically with respect to the alleged $10,500 loan at issue.              
          We infer from petitioner’s failure to elicit any such testimony              
          that any such testimony would not have been favorable to peti-               
          tioner’s position regarding that alleged loan.  We also note that            
          petitioner failed to offer into evidence any credible documentary            
          evidence showing that the $10,500 from Commonwealth Enterprises              
          represented a business loan from that company.  We infer from                
          petitioner’s failure to proffer any such documentary evidence                
          that any such documentary evidence does not exist and that, if               
          any such evidence does exist, it would not have substantiated                
          petitioner’s position with respect to that alleged loan.                     
               51Assuming arguendo that petitioner’s further trial memoran-            
          dum had raised as an issue that the Jan. 14, 1993 deposit repre-             
          sented a business loan from Amuke Group, we find on the record               
          before us that petitioner has failed to establish that that                  
          deposit constituted a business loan from that organization.  To              
          support his position on that matter, petitioner relies on his                
          self-serving testimony, on which we are not required to, and we              
          shall not, rely.  We note that petitioner did not elicit any                 
                                                              (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011