Document for Jordan Bardach v. Anna Martynova, Jennifer Milosavljevic, Yoel Hershkowitch, Aron Wolocowitz, Rentability, Inc. (Nominal Respondent)

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Brett G. Canna
                                                                                         Liberman Canna LLP
Partner                                                                                  110 East 59th Street, FL 22
Email: bcanna@libermancanna.com                                                          New York, NY 10022
                                                                                         P: +1.212.390.8844
                                                                                         F: +1.212.953.3690

November 30, 2023

BY NYSECF
Honorable Jennifer G. Schecter
New York Supreme Court New York County
60 Centre Street
New York, New York 10007

Re:    Bardach v. Martynova et al., Index No. 159110/2023

Dear Justice Schecter:

         My firm represents the Petitioner, Jordan Barach, in the above referenced matter and I write in
response to the letter of Respondents filed with the Court today (NYSCEF No. 135). In yet another
frivolous attempt to delay the outcome of the proceeding, the individual Respondents (assuming Mr.
Aloe still represents Ms. Martynova) claim that Petitioner has attempted to submit additional evidence
after the hearing has concluded. Petitioner has done no such thing, but instead has only advised the
Court of an event that occurred after the hearing that does not bear on the factual determination to be
made. On the other hand, Respondents have submitted unsupported new factual claims and arguments
in their post-hearing memorandum that should be stricken – and which they attempt to get a second
attempt at submitting evidence in relation thereto.

        First, it should be noted that, despite their frivolous claim otherwise, Respondents had a full and
fair opportunity to redirect Anna during her testimony but declined (NYSCEF No. 131, Tr. 181:3-
181:7). They now attempt to get additional evidence submitted by falsely claiming that Petitioner has
submitted additional evidence after the close of the hearing. However, once again, Respondents’
improper intentions and arguments are apparent.

        As to the additional information provided to the Court, the Court on numerous occasions has
indicated that it would like guidance from the parties on how to proceed with its concerns related to
Rentability. At the close of the hearing, the Court specifically requested that the parties address those
concerns:

       You know what’s on my mind in terms of concerns that I have about Rentability. Feel
       free to address them in post-trial submissions. But that I have enough in terms of what’s
       in front of me to resolve the issues in front of me.
(Tr. 181:14-181:18) After the hearing, Mr. Bardach met with HPD officials to discuss the status of
Rentability and was fully transparent as to its status and the current proceeding. Also after the hearing,
and as a result of the meeting, HPD informed Mr. Bardach that it would not be approving new
Rentability projects pending the outcome of a full review of the situation – including the submission of
false statements. Petitioner believed that this information should be provided to the Court as it addresses
and relates to the concerns that the Court has raised throughout this proceeding. It in no way is the
submission of additional evidence. Petitioner is confident that the facts have been established at the
hearing supporting his petition and there is no need for the submission of additional evidence.

        Finally, Respondents, on the other hand, have attempted to submit additional facts unsupported
by the record and arguments raised for the first time in their post-hearing memo. For example,
Respondents claim, with no evidence, that Mr. Bradach made false representations to HPD (Memo. p.4);
provide an unsupported explanation in relation to the undisputed improper deletion of company records
by Anna (Memo. p.16), claim that Mr. Bardach attempted to violate a court order (Memo. p.8) and raise
legal claims and arguments for the first time (Memo. p. 16). If anything should be stricken it is the
foregoing.

        Respondents’ request for additional information, to strike Petitioner’s brief, or to supplement the
record should be denied.

Respectfully Submitted,




Brett G. Canna




                                                     2