Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2022 11:40 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COMMERCIAL DIVISION, NEW YORK COUNTY
-------------------------------------------------------------- x
YASEMIN TEKINER, in her individual capacity, :
as a beneficiary and a Trustee of The Yasemin :
Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust and derivatively as :
a holder of equitable interests in a shareholder or a : Index No.: 657193/2020
member of the Company Defendants, :
Plaintiff, : Commercial Division Part 3
:
- against – : Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C.
:
BREMEN HOUSE INC., BREMEN HOUSE :
TEXAS, INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY, :
REPLY AFFIRMATION OF
INC., GERMAN NEWS TEXAS, INC., 254 - 258 :
STEPHEN P. YOUNGER
W. 35TH ST. LLC, BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA :
TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK, in her capacity :
as a Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 :
Descendants Trust, :
Defendants. :
-------------------------------------------------------------- x
STEPHEN P. YOUNGER, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts
of the State of New York, affirms under the penalty of perjury, pursuant to CPLR § 2106 as
follows:
1. I am a member of the law firm Foley Hoag LLP, attorneys for the plaintiff Yasemin
Tekiner (“Plaintiff”) in the above-captioned matter. I submit this reply affirmation in further
support of Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause for Leave to Renew Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction pursuant to CPLR § 2221(e) (the “Motion”), and to correct certain of the many
misstatements made by Defendants Bremen House, Inc., German News Company, Inc., Berrin
Tekiner (“Berrin”), Gonca (Tekiner) Chelsea, and Billur Akipek (collectively, “Defendants”), in
their memorandum of law in opposition to Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause.
2. I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this action, as set forth
herein, by virtue of my personal involvement as counsel and a review of the case files.
1
1 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2022 11:40 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022
Defendants’ Discovery Abuses
3. In their March 24, 2022 opposition brief to Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants claim
that they “have committed no ‘discovery abuses,’ including improperly withholding documents.”
(NYCEF Doc. No. 224, p. 7, fn. 3).
4. That is wrong. In fact, throughout the course of this case, Defendants improperly
withheld certain documents during discovery, and delayed producing numerous damaging text
messages between Berrin Tekiner and Gonca Tekiner until January 2022 — over six months after
they responded to Plaintiff’s document requests. And there are strong indications that Defendants
continue to withhold still more responsive documents.
5. By way of example, true and correct copies of several belatedly produced text
message exchanges are attached hereto as Exhibit A (Brem00286317-Brem00286323;
Brem00332369-Brem00332378). These texts illustrate, with disturbing candor, the family
dynamics that permitted Berrin to manipulate her daughters to cut them off from their trusts and
fire them from their roles at the Company to suit her personal whims of the moment, just as Berrin
has done when Plaintiff questioned her competence and ability to lead the Company in this lawsuit.
6. In one of these texts, Gonca, after another extremely emotional exchange with her
mother who she contends has enough judgment to run the Company, wrote to Berrin in
Brem00286317: “I see you want to tell me that I have the worst qualities etc. and you have nothing
to say to me and are cutting ties.” And Gonca herself, at Brem00332370, objected to Berrin’s
domination of her affairs, along the exact same lines asserted by Plaintiff, writing: “None of us
have a penny to our name. We don’t have anywhere to live. We depend on your good graces. So
when we are not in them, it’s terrifying. And you get angry and make threats, so yes we are afraid.”
Gonca goes on to plead with Berrin, at Brem00332371: “Well if you decide to cut us off like you
2
2 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2022 11:40 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022
threaten, where would we live? We can’t buy or even rent anything.” Remarkably, it appears that
certain text messages are still missing from these chains.
7. Moreover, when Defendants finally produced certain text message exchanges, they
did so only after making improper redactions. By way of example, Brem00286379-
Brem00286383 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B) is a document
from which Defendants improperly redacted “Personal Health Information.” Notably, this is the
same document that Plaintiff produced in unredacted form as TEKINER00086204-
TEKINER000860209 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C). The
unredacted version at TEKINER000860209 clearly shows the impropriety of Defendants’
redaction. The actual, complete text message with highlighting applied to show the verbiage that
Defendants improperly redacted, and that Plaintiff produced in unredacted form is reproduced
below for the Court’s convenience:
My mom obviously didn’t mention to phil that when she was all drugged up during the
suicide attempt that she blamed the whole thing on gonja and was sick of being dragged to
the lawyers and told she has all the power. The whole thing is so crazy. I really do hope
that they just find karma in their twisted relationship. So sick,they hate each other but then
stick together in this really toxic way. Let me know how therapy goes- if you want.
It appears that Defedants redacted information from this text because it was harmful to them —
showing that Berrin tried to commit suicide instead of submitting to Gonca’s demand to go to
Norton Rose — not because it was appropriate to redact. I brought this improper redaction to
Defendants attention at Zeynep’s deposition in December 2021, yet they still have not produced it
in appropriate form.
8. Also in their March 24, 2022 opposition brief to Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants
assert that “Plaintiffs have manufactured discovery disputes out of thin air ….” (NYSCEF Doc.
No. 224, p. 7; see also id. at 8 (“Plaintiff also continues to seek limitless, irrelevant documents in
discovery.”)). This, too, is incorrect.
3
3 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2022 11:40 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022
9. To support these statements, Defendants cite multiple Rule 14 letters that were
submitted to this Court regarding certain discovery disputes between the parties. Defendants fail
to mention, however, that of the four Rule 14 letters that the parties discussed with the Court’s law
clerk, Anthony J. Carl, Esq., on March 22 and March 24, 2022, Mr. Carl indicated that Plaintiff
was likely to succeed on two of those letters. In fact, on March 25, 2022, counsel for Defendants
agreed to produce to Yasemin documents that she raised in her July 30, 2021 Rule 14 letter – i.e.,
1) the 2017 removal of Yasemin’s sister, Zeynep Tekiner (“Zeynep”) from her trust, officer, and
director positions with the Companies; and 2) Zeynep’s reinstatement in 2019. As to the other two
Rule 14 letters, the Court requested briefing of the issues they raised.
Defendants’ Inappropriate Objections During Zeynep’s December 22, 2021 Deposition
10. Defendants reference the fact that Zeynep’s December 22, 2021 deposition was
stopped before I had a chance to conclude my questioning of her. Significantly, counsel for the
Defendants and prior counsel for Zeynep asserted numerous objections that were both improper
speaking objections and went well beyond the permissible objections to the form of questions.
See, e.g., Exhibit D (a true and correct copy of pertinent portions of the December 22, 2021
Deposition of Zeynep Tekiner (“Tr.”)), at Tr. 41:5; 76:8; 180:21; 231:13; 254:10; 259:4; 299:17;
329:23; 330:22; 377:13.
11. These improper objections by counsel for defense and prior counsel for Zeynep
inappropriately delayed and hindered my ability to question Zeynep for the full seven hours
permitted under the Commercial Division Rules. By my estimation, approximately one hour and
44 minutes of the seven-hour deposition were consumed by objections, as opposed to questioning
the witness. In fact, the word “object,” or one of its derivative forms, appears more than 1,100
times in the transcript of Zeynep’s deposition.
4
4 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2022 11:40 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022
12. Zeynep was also improperly instructed not to answer many of my questions
throughout the course of her deposition, for reasons other than privilege. These directions not to
answer included instructions that Zeynep not respond to my questions based on form. See, e.g.,
Tr. 52:1; 286:18; 295:14; 331:19; 332:8; 334:13. I reminded counsel on the record that the only
permissible basis to instruct a witness not to answer is when a question calls for a witness to divulge
privileged attorney-client communications. Despite this, those instructions were not withdrawn.
13. As a result of counsel’s many inappropriate objections and speeches on the record,
Zeynep’s then-counsel terminated the deposition before I was able to examine the witness for the
full seven hours permitted under the Commercial Division Rules. See Tr. 387:24-389:24.
14. Defendants also claim that I improperly asked Zeynep about subjects such as
Zeynep’s divorce and Berrin’s and Gonca’s mental health issues. However, they fail to note that
the Company paid the approximately $1.5 million in legal fees incurred for Zeynep’s divorce —
something Zeynep apparently learned for the first time at her deposition. See Tr. 184:19-185:20.
As to mental health issues, they are squarely raised in Plaintiff’s complaint and Gonca’s
employment contract allowed her to be fired for cause if she possessed illegal drugs or abused
alcohol. See Tr. 244:23-251:19; see also Zeynep Tekiner Dep. Exh. 41 (a true and correct copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit E).
Plaintiff Has Identified the Witnesses that Plaintiff Seeks to Depose
15. Defendants also claim that Plaintiff supposedly refused to tell defense counsel
which witnesses we wish to depose. This is not correct. There have been numerous
communications among counsel about who will be deposed and when. Indeed, in a February 25,
2022 e-mail (attached hereto as Exhibit F), Plaintiff’s counsel listed out who they expected to
depose in this case.
5
5 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2022 11:40 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022
Defendants’ Questionable Property Purchases
16. In her affidavit, Berrin claims to have purchased a $1.27 million home located at 5
Georgetowne North in Greenwich, Connecticut in Fall 2020 with funds from her pension account.
See Affidavit of Berrin Tekiner in Opposition to Motion for Leave to Renew (the “Berrin Aff.”),
NYSCEF Doc. No. 225 ¶ 30. She provides no support for this assertion and it runs counter to
documents that I have reviewed.
17. First, it makes little sense that Berrin would have paid for the purchase of a home
from her personal funds yet put the property in the name of the Company.
18. Second, Berrin’s most recent statement of her financial condition for 2019 (a true
and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit G) listed her pension account at approximately
$1.6 million. And her prior years’ financial statements listed her pension at similar amounts. It is
thus surprising that Berrin’s pension would be used to fund a $1.27 million purchase of her
Greenwich house just one year later — pulling out the vast majority of her pension funds in a
single transaction. And Berrin attaches no documents that would support this claim.
19. Significantly, the closing documents for the purchase of this Greenwich house
(partially redacted but otherwise true and correct copies of which are attached as Exhibit H
(Brem00164646-00164689) do not reflect any involvement of Berrin personally in the transaction
or any funds being transmitted from her pension. Rather, there is both a letter in the closing
statement and a deed which list the purchaser as Bremen. Moreover, the closing documents
include a letter addressed to Bremen, not to Berrin, with instructions about how to make payments
for the transaction.
6
6 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2022 11:40 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022
20. As detailed in our opening papers, Berrin sold the Greenwich house about a year
later for a listed price of $1 million, at a loss of at least $270,000.00 plus closing costs. (See
NYSCEF Doc. No. 184, at ¶ 26(b)).
21. Berrin claims to have bought an apartment in her personal name located at 124 East
79th Street in Manhattan in August 2021 using her “own personal money….” (NYSCEF Doc. No.
225, ¶ 31). This is highly suspect and Berrin supplies no documents to support this assertion.
22. The purchase price of the 79th Street apartment was approximately $2.9 million. If
Berrin is right that her pension had been used to buy the Greenwich property, her pension funds
would have been virtually exhausted, and her financial statements do not show sufficient cash to
pay the remainder of the purchase price for this apartment. Without further documentation, it is
difficult to imagine what “personal money” Berrin used to fund this apartment purchase in her own
name. And, as indicated, no documents have been provided to support her claim.
The December 8, 2021 Deposition of Billur Akipek
23. True and correct copies of certain pertinent portions of the transcript of the
December 8, 2021 deposition of Billur Akipek are attached hereto as Exhibit I.
The Appraisal of 254-258 West 35th Street
24. A true and correct copy of an appraisal of the 35th Street Property is attached hereto
as Exhibit J (Brem00324954-00325000).
7
7 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2022 11:40 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant her motion to renew her
prior preliminary injunction motion and on renewal: 1) order Defendants to reinstate Plaintiff to
her positions as a director and officer of Bremen and German; 2) order Defendants to restore
Plaintiff’s Company salary and benefits going forward; 3) grant Plaintiff back-pay and benefits
with interest extending back to the date of her wrongful termination in January 2021; and 4) grant
Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York
April 4, 2022 ______________________________
Stephen P. Younger
8
8 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2022 11:40 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO COMMERCIAL DIVISION RULE 17
I hereby certify that the foregoing Memorandum of Law complies with Rule 17 of
subdivision (g) of section 202.70 of the Uniform Rules for the Supreme Court and County Court
(Rules of Practice for the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court), and has a word count of
2,048, which is within the word limit of 7,000.
Dated: April 4, 2022
New York, New York
Stephen P. Younger
9
9 of 9
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2022 11:40 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COMMERCIAL DIVISION, NEW YORK COUNTY -------------------------------------------------------------- x YASEMIN TEKINER, in her individual capacity, : as a beneficiary and a Trustee of The Yasemin : Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust and derivatively as : a holder of equitable interests in a shareholder or a : Index No.: 657193/2020 member of the Company Defendants, : Plaintiff, : Commercial Division Part 3 : - against – : Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C. : BREMEN HOUSE INC., BREMEN HOUSE : TEXAS, INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY, : REPLY AFFIRMATION OF INC., GERMAN NEWS TEXAS, INC., 254 - 258 : STEPHEN P. YOUNGER W. 35TH ST. LLC, BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA : TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK, in her capacity : as a Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 : Descendants Trust, : Defendants. : -------------------------------------------------------------- x STEPHEN P. YOUNGER, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms under the penalty of perjury, pursuant to CPLR § 2106 as follows: 1. I am a member of the law firm Foley Hoag LLP, attorneys for the plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner (“Plaintiff”) in the above-captioned matter. I submit this reply affirmation in further support of Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause for Leave to Renew Motion for a Preliminary Injunction pursuant to CPLR § 2221(e) (the “Motion”), and to correct certain of the many misstatements made by Defendants Bremen House, Inc., German News Company, Inc., Berrin Tekiner (“Berrin”), Gonca (Tekiner) Chelsea, and Billur Akipek (collectively, “Defendants”), in their memorandum of law in opposition to Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause. 2. I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this action, as set forth herein, by virtue of my personal involvement as counsel and a review of the case files. 1 1 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2022 11:40 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 Defendants’ Discovery Abuses 3. In their March 24, 2022 opposition brief to Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants claim that they “have committed no ‘discovery abuses,’ including improperly withholding documents.” (NYCEF Doc. No. 224, p. 7, fn. 3). 4. That is wrong. In fact, throughout the course of this case, Defendants improperly withheld certain documents during discovery, and delayed producing numerous damaging text messages between Berrin Tekiner and Gonca Tekiner until January 2022 — over six months after they responded to Plaintiff’s document requests. And there are strong indications that Defendants continue to withhold still more responsive documents. 5. By way of example, true and correct copies of several belatedly produced text message exchanges are attached hereto as Exhibit A (Brem00286317-Brem00286323; Brem00332369-Brem00332378). These texts illustrate, with disturbing candor, the family dynamics that permitted Berrin to manipulate her daughters to cut them off from their trusts and fire them from their roles at the Company to suit her personal whims of the moment, just as Berrin has done when Plaintiff questioned her competence and ability to lead the Company in this lawsuit. 6. In one of these texts, Gonca, after another extremely emotional exchange with her mother who she contends has enough judgment to run the Company, wrote to Berrin in Brem00286317: “I see you want to tell me that I have the worst qualities etc. and you have nothing to say to me and are cutting ties.” And Gonca herself, at Brem00332370, objected to Berrin’s domination of her affairs, along the exact same lines asserted by Plaintiff, writing: “None of us have a penny to our name. We don’t have anywhere to live. We depend on your good graces. So when we are not in them, it’s terrifying. And you get angry and make threats, so yes we are afraid.” Gonca goes on to plead with Berrin, at Brem00332371: “Well if you decide to cut us off like you 2 2 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2022 11:40 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 threaten, where would we live? We can’t buy or even rent anything.” Remarkably, it appears that certain text messages are still missing from these chains. 7. Moreover, when Defendants finally produced certain text message exchanges, they did so only after making improper redactions. By way of example, Brem00286379- Brem00286383 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B) is a document from which Defendants improperly redacted “Personal Health Information.” Notably, this is the same document that Plaintiff produced in unredacted form as TEKINER00086204- TEKINER000860209 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C). The unredacted version at TEKINER000860209 clearly shows the impropriety of Defendants’ redaction. The actual, complete text message with highlighting applied to show the verbiage that Defendants improperly redacted, and that Plaintiff produced in unredacted form is reproduced below for the Court’s convenience: My mom obviously didn’t mention to phil that when she was all drugged up during the suicide attempt that she blamed the whole thing on gonja and was sick of being dragged to the lawyers and told she has all the power. The whole thing is so crazy. I really do hope that they just find karma in their twisted relationship. So sick,they hate each other but then stick together in this really toxic way. Let me know how therapy goes- if you want. It appears that Defedants redacted information from this text because it was harmful to them — showing that Berrin tried to commit suicide instead of submitting to Gonca’s demand to go to Norton Rose — not because it was appropriate to redact. I brought this improper redaction to Defendants attention at Zeynep’s deposition in December 2021, yet they still have not produced it in appropriate form. 8. Also in their March 24, 2022 opposition brief to Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants assert that “Plaintiffs have manufactured discovery disputes out of thin air ….” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 224, p. 7; see also id. at 8 (“Plaintiff also continues to seek limitless, irrelevant documents in discovery.”)). This, too, is incorrect. 3 3 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2022 11:40 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 9. To support these statements, Defendants cite multiple Rule 14 letters that were submitted to this Court regarding certain discovery disputes between the parties. Defendants fail to mention, however, that of the four Rule 14 letters that the parties discussed with the Court’s law clerk, Anthony J. Carl, Esq., on March 22 and March 24, 2022, Mr. Carl indicated that Plaintiff was likely to succeed on two of those letters. In fact, on March 25, 2022, counsel for Defendants agreed to produce to Yasemin documents that she raised in her July 30, 2021 Rule 14 letter – i.e., 1) the 2017 removal of Yasemin’s sister, Zeynep Tekiner (“Zeynep”) from her trust, officer, and director positions with the Companies; and 2) Zeynep’s reinstatement in 2019. As to the other two Rule 14 letters, the Court requested briefing of the issues they raised. Defendants’ Inappropriate Objections During Zeynep’s December 22, 2021 Deposition 10. Defendants reference the fact that Zeynep’s December 22, 2021 deposition was stopped before I had a chance to conclude my questioning of her. Significantly, counsel for the Defendants and prior counsel for Zeynep asserted numerous objections that were both improper speaking objections and went well beyond the permissible objections to the form of questions. See, e.g., Exhibit D (a true and correct copy of pertinent portions of the December 22, 2021 Deposition of Zeynep Tekiner (“Tr.”)), at Tr. 41:5; 76:8; 180:21; 231:13; 254:10; 259:4; 299:17; 329:23; 330:22; 377:13. 11. These improper objections by counsel for defense and prior counsel for Zeynep inappropriately delayed and hindered my ability to question Zeynep for the full seven hours permitted under the Commercial Division Rules. By my estimation, approximately one hour and 44 minutes of the seven-hour deposition were consumed by objections, as opposed to questioning the witness. In fact, the word “object,” or one of its derivative forms, appears more than 1,100 times in the transcript of Zeynep’s deposition. 4 4 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2022 11:40 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 12. Zeynep was also improperly instructed not to answer many of my questions throughout the course of her deposition, for reasons other than privilege. These directions not to answer included instructions that Zeynep not respond to my questions based on form. See, e.g., Tr. 52:1; 286:18; 295:14; 331:19; 332:8; 334:13. I reminded counsel on the record that the only permissible basis to instruct a witness not to answer is when a question calls for a witness to divulge privileged attorney-client communications. Despite this, those instructions were not withdrawn. 13. As a result of counsel’s many inappropriate objections and speeches on the record, Zeynep’s then-counsel terminated the deposition before I was able to examine the witness for the full seven hours permitted under the Commercial Division Rules. See Tr. 387:24-389:24. 14. Defendants also claim that I improperly asked Zeynep about subjects such as Zeynep’s divorce and Berrin’s and Gonca’s mental health issues. However, they fail to note that the Company paid the approximately $1.5 million in legal fees incurred for Zeynep’s divorce — something Zeynep apparently learned for the first time at her deposition. See Tr. 184:19-185:20. As to mental health issues, they are squarely raised in Plaintiff’s complaint and Gonca’s employment contract allowed her to be fired for cause if she possessed illegal drugs or abused alcohol. See Tr. 244:23-251:19; see also Zeynep Tekiner Dep. Exh. 41 (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E). Plaintiff Has Identified the Witnesses that Plaintiff Seeks to Depose 15. Defendants also claim that Plaintiff supposedly refused to tell defense counsel which witnesses we wish to depose. This is not correct. There have been numerous communications among counsel about who will be deposed and when. Indeed, in a February 25, 2022 e-mail (attached hereto as Exhibit F), Plaintiff’s counsel listed out who they expected to depose in this case. 5 5 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2022 11:40 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 Defendants’ Questionable Property Purchases 16. In her affidavit, Berrin claims to have purchased a $1.27 million home located at 5 Georgetowne North in Greenwich, Connecticut in Fall 2020 with funds from her pension account. See Affidavit of Berrin Tekiner in Opposition to Motion for Leave to Renew (the “Berrin Aff.”), NYSCEF Doc. No. 225 ¶ 30. She provides no support for this assertion and it runs counter to documents that I have reviewed. 17. First, it makes little sense that Berrin would have paid for the purchase of a home from her personal funds yet put the property in the name of the Company. 18. Second, Berrin’s most recent statement of her financial condition for 2019 (a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit G) listed her pension account at approximately $1.6 million. And her prior years’ financial statements listed her pension at similar amounts. It is thus surprising that Berrin’s pension would be used to fund a $1.27 million purchase of her Greenwich house just one year later — pulling out the vast majority of her pension funds in a single transaction. And Berrin attaches no documents that would support this claim. 19. Significantly, the closing documents for the purchase of this Greenwich house (partially redacted but otherwise true and correct copies of which are attached as Exhibit H (Brem00164646-00164689) do not reflect any involvement of Berrin personally in the transaction or any funds being transmitted from her pension. Rather, there is both a letter in the closing statement and a deed which list the purchaser as Bremen. Moreover, the closing documents include a letter addressed to Bremen, not to Berrin, with instructions about how to make payments for the transaction. 6 6 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2022 11:40 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 20. As detailed in our opening papers, Berrin sold the Greenwich house about a year later for a listed price of $1 million, at a loss of at least $270,000.00 plus closing costs. (See NYSCEF Doc. No. 184, at ¶ 26(b)). 21. Berrin claims to have bought an apartment in her personal name located at 124 East 79th Street in Manhattan in August 2021 using her “own personal money….” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 225, ¶ 31). This is highly suspect and Berrin supplies no documents to support this assertion. 22. The purchase price of the 79th Street apartment was approximately $2.9 million. If Berrin is right that her pension had been used to buy the Greenwich property, her pension funds would have been virtually exhausted, and her financial statements do not show sufficient cash to pay the remainder of the purchase price for this apartment. Without further documentation, it is difficult to imagine what “personal money” Berrin used to fund this apartment purchase in her own name. And, as indicated, no documents have been provided to support her claim. The December 8, 2021 Deposition of Billur Akipek 23. True and correct copies of certain pertinent portions of the transcript of the December 8, 2021 deposition of Billur Akipek are attached hereto as Exhibit I. The Appraisal of 254-258 West 35th Street 24. A true and correct copy of an appraisal of the 35th Street Property is attached hereto as Exhibit J (Brem00324954-00325000). 7 7 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2022 11:40 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant her motion to renew her prior preliminary injunction motion and on renewal: 1) order Defendants to reinstate Plaintiff to her positions as a director and officer of Bremen and German; 2) order Defendants to restore Plaintiff’s Company salary and benefits going forward; 3) grant Plaintiff back-pay and benefits with interest extending back to the date of her wrongful termination in January 2021; and 4) grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be just and proper. Dated: New York, New York April 4, 2022 ______________________________ Stephen P. Younger 8 8 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2022 11:40 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2022 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO COMMERCIAL DIVISION RULE 17 I hereby certify that the foregoing Memorandum of Law complies with Rule 17 of subdivision (g) of section 202.70 of the Uniform Rules for the Supreme Court and County Court (Rules of Practice for the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court), and has a word count of 2,048, which is within the word limit of 7,000. Dated: April 4, 2022 New York, New York Stephen P. Younger 9 9 of 9