Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 712 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022
EXHIBIT M
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 712 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022
Writer’s Direct Contact:
908.333.6220 (Tel.)
PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP 212.596.7036 (Fax)
scott.parker@piblaw.com
www.piblaw.com
September 12, 2022
VIA E-MAIL
Meghan E. Hill
Pryor Cashman LLP
7 Times Square
New York, New York 10036-6569
Re: Yasemin Tekiner, et al. v. Bremen House Inc., et al.
Index No.: 657193/2020
Dear Meghan:
We write in response to the issues raised by Defendants during the parties’ September 6,
2022 meet-and-confer and in Defendants’ September 7, 2022 email regarding the subpoena (the
“Subpoena”) served by Yasemin Tekiner (“Yasemin”) on Santander Bank, N.A. (“Santander”) on
August 9, 2022, 28 days prior. Kindly allow this letter to address each of Defendants’ concerns
that were raised in turn.
First, Defendants claim the subpoena was “facially defective for lack of a description of
the reason why Santander’s documents are material and necessary.” This is not true. The
Subpoena provides:
Pursuant to CPLR § 3101(a)(4), your documents are required in
order to establish certain facts in the above-captioned action
relating, inter alia, to accounts at issue therein and transactions in
same that are pertinent to the parties’ claims and defenses,
including, but not limited to, those concerning the alleged corporate
waste, mismanagement, and misuse of funds by the named
defendants.
(Subpoena at 1-2). The Subpoena also provides the caption and docketing information. CPLR §
3101(a)(4) only imposes a “minimal obligation,” which is “meant to apprise a stranger to the
litigation the ‘circumstances or reasons’ why the disclosure [is] sought or required.” (Village
Green Mishawaka Holdings, LLC v Romanoff, Index No. 657290/2017, 2019 NY Misc LEXIS
5744, *3 [Sup Ct, NY Cty Oct 25, 2019] (Cohen, J.) (citations omitted)). The Subpoena satisfies
this Rule.
Second, Defendants objected to Yasemin’s request for “non-redacted” documents.
Defendants specifically raised concerns regarding their Personally Identifiable Information
(“PII”), such as their social security numbers. Yasemin agrees that PII may be redacted to the last
four digits of social security numbers and account numbers. Yasemin will further agree to treat
New York Office: 5 Penn Plaza, Suite 2371 – New York, New York 10001 – 212.596.7037
New Jersey Office: 270 Davidson Avenue – Somerset, New Jersey 08873 – 908.725.9700
BOSTON – NEW JERSEY – NEW YORK – ORANGE COUNTY – PHILADELPHIA
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 712 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022
any documents received as confidential and subject to the Stipulation and Order for the Production
and Exchange of Confidential Information (See NYSCEF Doc. No. 91).
Third, Defendants objected to the scope of the Subpoena as “overbroad” because it seeks
documents from January 1, 2014 through the present. Specifically, Defendants claim the
Subpoena should be limited to any applicable statute of limitations, which would be December 21,
2014 (six years from the filing of Yasemin’s Summons with Notice). While there is no basis for
limiting the temporal scope, Yasemin will agree to limit the time period of the Subpoena to
“December 21, 2014 to the present”, solely for the purposes of resolving this immediate dispute.
Fourth, Defendants objected to any request for bank account statements for the Residuary
Trust of Sami Tekiner account (the “Trust Account”) as “irrelevant.” This objection is belied by
the fact that Defendants have already produced multiple statements for the Trust Account (albeit
incomplete) in discovery. Further, as was explained during our meet-and-confer, discovery has
revealed a significant co-mingling of funds between Company held and managed accounts
th
(including 254-258 W. 35 Street LLC’s account) and the Trust Account (i.e., a non-Company
account controlled by Berrin). Yasemin has explained why this information is directly (and
obviously) relevant to many of the claims and allegations in her complaint, including, but not
limited to, her claims for mismanagement of Company funds and self-dealing.
In contrast, Defendants have not, and cannot, establish that this information is “utterly
irrelevant” to the Complaint as Justice Cohen has recognized would be required to for purposes of
quashing the Subpoena. (Village Green, 2019 NY Misc LEXIS 5744, at *3). As such, this
information should be produced without any further objection from Defendants.
Fifth, Defendants also objected that “documents from the bank accounts belonging to the
individual defendants” are also “irrelevant” and claimed that Yasemin “gave the same basis” (i.e.,
because of “transfers into and out of accounts”) as to why Yasemin sought these documents.
Again, this is not true. As was explained – and as is apparent from the Subpoena – the requests
relating to personal accounts (i.e., Requests 1-3) only seek legible and complete versions of the
specific statements that have already been produced by Defendants. For example, Exhibit 1 is the
Santander statement for an account held by Berrin Tekiner, Statement Period 11/16/15 to 12/15/15.
That document indicates that it is a five-page document – but only pages one and two were
produced. Further, many of the lines are illegible. As these documents are clearly within
Defendants’ possession, custody, and control, we again invite Defendants to provide complete and
legible copies of the documents they produced in accordance with their continuing discovery
obligations. If Defendants continue to decline to do so, Yasemin will obtain same from Santander.1
1
Regarding Requests 15-19, and as we noted during our meet-and-confer, these do not appear to be personal accounts.
Rather, per Defendants’ production, these are “small business accounts” opened on the same day by Berrin Tekiner,
Gonca Tekiner and Billur Akipek. You represented that you did not believe these business accounts were related to
the Company or used for Company business (notwithstanding the fact they were all opened on the same day by Berrin,
Gonca, and/or Billur) but that you would discuss same with your client and get back to us. We are still awaiting your
response.
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 712 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022
Sixth, Defendants objected to “Requests 8, 9, 15-19” on the basis that “they are currently
so overbroad as to be impossible to respond to” and because of the “lack of a time period in those
requests.” As we noted several times during the meet-and-confer, however, the entire Subpoena
is limited to the time period of January 1, 2014 to the present (unless otherwise specified). This
time limitation is clearly listed in the instructions for the subpoena. (See Subpoena at 7). As noted
above, Yasemin will agree to further narrow the scope of the Subpoena to six years before the
filing of Yasemin’s Summons with Notice. Yasemin disagrees with Defendants’ unfounded
contention that the type of documents requested (i.e., documents showing movement of funds into
or out of the account) is overbroad or “impossible to respond to.” And, in any event, it is up to
Santander, not Defendants, to decide whether the requests are “impossible to respond to.”
Seventh, and finally, Defendants contended that Yasemin’s request for the “signature
cards” for these accounts was “irrelevant.” Defendants, however, are again without a factual basis
to contend that this is “utterly irrelevant” given the claims and defenses at issue in this litigation,
and any attempt to quash this request under this standard would be devoid of merit. That said, and
with the goal of resolving the instant dispute, Yasemin will agree to drop her request for “signature
cards” at this time.
In sum, Yasemin has fully responded to all of the concerns that you raised, and has made
reasonable concessions where appropriate. Should Defendants continue to disagree with
Yasemin’s positions on any of the issues addressed above, please promptly explain the remaining
points of contention and provide legal authority in support.
Very truly yours,
Scott W. Parker
cc: Stephen P. Younger, Esq.
Michele Kahn, Esq.
3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 712 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 712 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022 EXHIBIT M FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 712 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022 Writer’s Direct Contact: 908.333.6220 (Tel.) PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP 212.596.7036 (Fax) scott.parker@piblaw.com www.piblaw.com September 12, 2022 VIA E-MAIL Meghan E. Hill Pryor Cashman LLP 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036-6569 Re: Yasemin Tekiner, et al. v. Bremen House Inc., et al. Index No.: 657193/2020 Dear Meghan: We write in response to the issues raised by Defendants during the parties’ September 6, 2022 meet-and-confer and in Defendants’ September 7, 2022 email regarding the subpoena (the “Subpoena”) served by Yasemin Tekiner (“Yasemin”) on Santander Bank, N.A. (“Santander”) on August 9, 2022, 28 days prior. Kindly allow this letter to address each of Defendants’ concerns that were raised in turn. First, Defendants claim the subpoena was “facially defective for lack of a description of the reason why Santander’s documents are material and necessary.” This is not true. The Subpoena provides: Pursuant to CPLR § 3101(a)(4), your documents are required in order to establish certain facts in the above-captioned action relating, inter alia, to accounts at issue therein and transactions in same that are pertinent to the parties’ claims and defenses, including, but not limited to, those concerning the alleged corporate waste, mismanagement, and misuse of funds by the named defendants. (Subpoena at 1-2). The Subpoena also provides the caption and docketing information. CPLR § 3101(a)(4) only imposes a “minimal obligation,” which is “meant to apprise a stranger to the litigation the ‘circumstances or reasons’ why the disclosure [is] sought or required.” (Village Green Mishawaka Holdings, LLC v Romanoff, Index No. 657290/2017, 2019 NY Misc LEXIS 5744, *3 [Sup Ct, NY Cty Oct 25, 2019] (Cohen, J.) (citations omitted)). The Subpoena satisfies this Rule. Second, Defendants objected to Yasemin’s request for “non-redacted” documents. Defendants specifically raised concerns regarding their Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”), such as their social security numbers. Yasemin agrees that PII may be redacted to the last four digits of social security numbers and account numbers. Yasemin will further agree to treat New York Office: 5 Penn Plaza, Suite 2371 – New York, New York 10001 – 212.596.7037 New Jersey Office: 270 Davidson Avenue – Somerset, New Jersey 08873 – 908.725.9700 BOSTON – NEW JERSEY – NEW YORK – ORANGE COUNTY – PHILADELPHIA FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 712 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022 any documents received as confidential and subject to the Stipulation and Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information (See NYSCEF Doc. No. 91). Third, Defendants objected to the scope of the Subpoena as “overbroad” because it seeks documents from January 1, 2014 through the present. Specifically, Defendants claim the Subpoena should be limited to any applicable statute of limitations, which would be December 21, 2014 (six years from the filing of Yasemin’s Summons with Notice). While there is no basis for limiting the temporal scope, Yasemin will agree to limit the time period of the Subpoena to “December 21, 2014 to the present”, solely for the purposes of resolving this immediate dispute. Fourth, Defendants objected to any request for bank account statements for the Residuary Trust of Sami Tekiner account (the “Trust Account”) as “irrelevant.” This objection is belied by the fact that Defendants have already produced multiple statements for the Trust Account (albeit incomplete) in discovery. Further, as was explained during our meet-and-confer, discovery has revealed a significant co-mingling of funds between Company held and managed accounts th (including 254-258 W. 35 Street LLC’s account) and the Trust Account (i.e., a non-Company account controlled by Berrin). Yasemin has explained why this information is directly (and obviously) relevant to many of the claims and allegations in her complaint, including, but not limited to, her claims for mismanagement of Company funds and self-dealing. In contrast, Defendants have not, and cannot, establish that this information is “utterly irrelevant” to the Complaint as Justice Cohen has recognized would be required to for purposes of quashing the Subpoena. (Village Green, 2019 NY Misc LEXIS 5744, at *3). As such, this information should be produced without any further objection from Defendants. Fifth, Defendants also objected that “documents from the bank accounts belonging to the individual defendants” are also “irrelevant” and claimed that Yasemin “gave the same basis” (i.e., because of “transfers into and out of accounts”) as to why Yasemin sought these documents. Again, this is not true. As was explained – and as is apparent from the Subpoena – the requests relating to personal accounts (i.e., Requests 1-3) only seek legible and complete versions of the specific statements that have already been produced by Defendants. For example, Exhibit 1 is the Santander statement for an account held by Berrin Tekiner, Statement Period 11/16/15 to 12/15/15. That document indicates that it is a five-page document – but only pages one and two were produced. Further, many of the lines are illegible. As these documents are clearly within Defendants’ possession, custody, and control, we again invite Defendants to provide complete and legible copies of the documents they produced in accordance with their continuing discovery obligations. If Defendants continue to decline to do so, Yasemin will obtain same from Santander.1 1 Regarding Requests 15-19, and as we noted during our meet-and-confer, these do not appear to be personal accounts. Rather, per Defendants’ production, these are “small business accounts” opened on the same day by Berrin Tekiner, Gonca Tekiner and Billur Akipek. You represented that you did not believe these business accounts were related to the Company or used for Company business (notwithstanding the fact they were all opened on the same day by Berrin, Gonca, and/or Billur) but that you would discuss same with your client and get back to us. We are still awaiting your response. 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 712 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022 Sixth, Defendants objected to “Requests 8, 9, 15-19” on the basis that “they are currently so overbroad as to be impossible to respond to” and because of the “lack of a time period in those requests.” As we noted several times during the meet-and-confer, however, the entire Subpoena is limited to the time period of January 1, 2014 to the present (unless otherwise specified). This time limitation is clearly listed in the instructions for the subpoena. (See Subpoena at 7). As noted above, Yasemin will agree to further narrow the scope of the Subpoena to six years before the filing of Yasemin’s Summons with Notice. Yasemin disagrees with Defendants’ unfounded contention that the type of documents requested (i.e., documents showing movement of funds into or out of the account) is overbroad or “impossible to respond to.” And, in any event, it is up to Santander, not Defendants, to decide whether the requests are “impossible to respond to.” Seventh, and finally, Defendants contended that Yasemin’s request for the “signature cards” for these accounts was “irrelevant.” Defendants, however, are again without a factual basis to contend that this is “utterly irrelevant” given the claims and defenses at issue in this litigation, and any attempt to quash this request under this standard would be devoid of merit. That said, and with the goal of resolving the instant dispute, Yasemin will agree to drop her request for “signature cards” at this time. In sum, Yasemin has fully responded to all of the concerns that you raised, and has made reasonable concessions where appropriate. Should Defendants continue to disagree with Yasemin’s positions on any of the issues addressed above, please promptly explain the remaining points of contention and provide legal authority in support. Very truly yours, Scott W. Parker cc: Stephen P. Younger, Esq. Michele Kahn, Esq. 3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 712 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022