Altomare Deposition 26 Jun 08 OCR Transcript Extract 8
---------------------------
EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHOEPPL:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Altomare.
A. Good afternoon to you, sir.
Q. My name is Carl Schoeppl, and I am the attorney for The Estate Department, Inc. We are the Intervenor in this case. I am going to ask you a few questions that relate to my particular client's situation. During the year 2007, did you have an occasion to meet with any representatives from the company called The Estate Department?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And who did you meet with from The Estate Department, sir?
A. Well, it was my wife and I. My wife put the meeting together because it was her jewelry. It was a Mr. Kravit. His son did come once to take a look at one particular diamond. He had a police officer, security officer, there at all times. I don't recall his name. And then there was another gentleman who was his employee. I'm afraid, I don't recall his name. They weren't all there at all times, but those are the four gentlemen that I remember.
Q. How many meetings did you have with representatives of The Estate Department regarding the sale of your wife's jewelry?
A. It was either two or three. I do not recall. It blurs a little bit at this time as to whether or not we met and didn't do anything, and then decided to come back again. I know there was a Jewish holiday in the middle and I know that Mr. Kravit is very religious, very Orthodox, so I know that there was a period of time before he could come back. And then I think there was a trip he had to make to South America that also complicated some of the communications.
Q. The meetings that you refer to, where did they take place?
A. Well, actually, my wife's meeting first with them was at their office. And then she invited them to our home. And that's when she informed me that, because of my troubles and my challenges, and she wanted to help me pay my legal expenses and pay our living expenses at the onset of this case.
Q. Now, just turning our attention just specifically to the meetings. Did the meetings -- when you referred to your home, are you referring to the Bocaire home?
A. Bocaire. You're not correct on the pronunciation of it. It's just Bocaire, B-O-C-A-I-R. It's spelled A-I-R-E, but it's just Bocaire.
Q. Bocaire. So the meetings that you had in person with representatives of The Estate Department took place at your home in Bocaire?
A. Our home. My wife's and my home, yes, sir.
Q. These meetings took place during what month in 2007?
A. I am sorry, I do not recall. Whatever the records indicate. I'm sure there have been a multitude of documents on this. I do not recall after being away from a calendar and a clock for awhile.
Q. Just talking about big picture, you mentioned Mr. Kravit and his son; do you know the name of Mr. Kravit, the first name?
A. No.
Q. Was it Mark Kravit?
A. Mark, Mark, yes, that's correct. Thank you.
Q. Was the son's name Andrew Kravit?
A. I cannot recall that.
Q. Let's just focus first on Mr. Mark Kravit. Prior to your first meeting with Mr. Kravit, had you ever had any dealings with Mr. Kravit prior to that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Prior to your first meeting with Mr. Kravit, had you had any dealings with The Estate Department, Inc.?
A. No, sir.
Q. And just to establish just some foundation, was any jewelry of your wife's sold to The Estate Department as a result of these meetings?
A. Almost all of it, yes.
Q. Approximately how much money was paid by The Estate Department for this jewelry?
A. Again, I do not know the exact number, but I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 530 or 540 thousand dollars.
Q. How was that money paid, in what form?
A. I believe most of it was in cash, and I think there was a check, I think, unless it was in cash. But my wife handled most of it. It was her jewelry.
Q. Now, during response to some of the questions asked you by the SEC in this case, you were asked about Plaintiffs Exhibit Number 28. I would like to hand that to you. Sir, I am handing you what has been previously marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit 28. Do you have that in front of you, sir?
A. I do, sir.
Q. There is a name as payee that's listed on this exhibit, the Weinstein Design Group; do you see that?
A. I do, sir.
Q. What was the Weinstein Design Group?
A. A decorating and furniture service.
Q. Did you, in fact, pay the Weinstein Design Group in excess of $600,000 for design services?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what design services was the Weinstein Design Group providing you and your wife, sir?
A. They totally gutted out the apartment that we purchased and redecorated it and did bathrooms and built-ins and, you know, furnishings and painting and even taking down walls in the apartment.
Q. Earlier in your testimony you identified a condominium by the name we used on the record, Toscano West; do you recall using that characterization, sir?
A. I recall it being asked. I don't think I used Toscano West, but yes, I do remember we discussed Toscano.
Q. For purposes of the record, if I use Toscano West as the name, is that the name of the apartment that the interior decorating services provided?
A. Yes.
Q. Were all the services the Weinstein Design Group rendered for that Toscano West condominium, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were any of the monies that you received -- I know you don't have the papers in front of you, but you believe it's approximately half a million, 530, 540 thousand dollars. Were any of those funds used to pay for the interior decorating services that were rendered by Weinstein Design Group for your Toscano West apartment?
MR. TIFFORD: I object to the form. I think you used too many pronouns. I ask you to identify particular parties rather than say "those funds."
MR. SCHOEPPL: I will rephrase my question for you, sir.
Q. Were any part of the monies that were received by you and your wife used to pay the Weinstein Design Group?
A. I believe some were, sir.
Q. Do you know how much?
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. Why were the decorating services being conducted on the Toscano West condominium?
A. We were attempting -- originally we were attempting to move in. Then when we were hit with this fine, we decided we had to finish the apartment so that we could sell the apartment, and thought that we would be able to sell the apartment for more than what we owed in it, and pay the fine, but then the real estate market softened in South Florida, and it became a bit difficult for us with that.
Q. On the record earlier you identified the jewelry that was sold to The Estate Department as your wife's jewelry?
A. A majority of it was, yes, sir.
Q. Now, were any parts of the jewelry that were sold to The Estate Department acquired from a company called Less Bijoux?
A. Yes.
Q. So just reorienting you, sir, back to my prior question. I had asked you whether some of the jewelry that was sold by your wife to The Estate Department was purchased from Les Bijoux originally; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir; yes, sir, it is.
Q. With respect to the jewelry that was purchased from Les Bijoux, was all of the jewelry purchased paid in full by you prior?
A. Absolutely, sir.
Q. So at the time that your wife sold her jewelry and some of your jewelry to The Estate Department, was any money owed to Les Bijoux on any article of jewelry that was sold to The Estate Department?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now you, in response to one of my questions, you mentioned that your wife had met with representatives of The Estate Department before a meeting was conducted at your home; is that a fair characterization, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you present at that meeting, sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know what occurred at that meeting?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know if any jewelry was sold at that meeting?
A. Oh, no jewelry was sold.
Q. Now, to the best of your recollection, there were two or three meetings that took place between yourself and representatives of The Estate Department and your wife?
A. That's correct.
Q. In terms of sequence, do you recall the substance of the first meeting with representatives of The Estate Department?
A. Could you rephrase the term "substance"?
Q. Sure. Do you recall any of the details of the discussions that occurred during the first meeting with representatives of The Estate Department in which you were present?
A. Basically it was Mr. Kravit talking about his business, about himself, about how he operates on a 10 percent markup, and how I probably overpaid Les Bijoux for less than I had gotten, but I thought that was just initial salesmanship.
Q. Did you have an understanding, based on that first meeting, as to what the business Mr. Kravit was engaged in at that point?
A. Of course, sir.
Q. What was your understanding?
A. He purchased art, jewelry and artifacts for -- to individuals who wanted to liquidate or sell property.
Q. At the initial meeting, sir, were there any particular items of jewelry that you recall that you or your wife wanted to sell to The Estate Department?
A. Yes. My wife had a bag of some of her jewelry and discussed it with - Mr. Kravit's son, and they consummated an initial transaction, and then there was a second meeting where other items were discussed.
Q. Let's just focus on the initial transaction itself. During the initial transaction, were any items of your jewelry sold to The Estate Department in the initial transaction?
A. I don't recall, sir, but the records are very clear as to what we did sell at that time. I don't recall whether or not we sold mine on the first or the second, but I do -- I do not recall.
Q. In a moment I am going to show you a few documents I think might refresh your recollection. But do you think if you looked at a list of the items that were sold, would you be able to recognize what was yours and what was your wife's?
A. Not necessarily, but I will make a very good try.
Q. During the meeting with representatives of The Estate Department the first time, was there a discussion about your wife and you seeking to decorate the Toscano condominium; did that come up, to the best of your recollection, sir?
A. I don't recall that being part of our discussion.
Q. Sir, with respect to the conversation, is it correct that you did not have any prior business dealings with The Estate Department before your first meeting with them; is that correct?
A. That is correct, sir.
Q. At the initial meeting, do you know if there were other items that you wanted to have representatives of The Estate Department look at, other than jewelry of yours and jewelry of your wife's?
A. Not in the initial meeting, sir.
Q. And is there anything else you remember about the first meeting, as you sit here today?
A. No, sir, not at this time.
Q. The second meeting, do you remember what happened, the second meeting, generally?
A. I think I may need some documents to refresh my memory. I don't remember.
MR. SCHOEPPL: I will have these marked as 40 and 41.
(Estate Exhibit 40, list of items of jewelry sold to The Estate Department, Bates numbers TED 34 through 38, marked for identification, as of this date.)
(Estate Exhibit 41, list of four jewelry items sold to The Estate Department, Bates number TED 33, marked for identification, as of this date.)
Q. Mr. Altomare, I am just focusing your attention back on the initial transaction that jewelry was-sold to The Estate Department. Was that transaction involving approximately $90,000, sir?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. The second transaction, which occurred subsequent to the first transaction, did that transaction involve approximately $481,000?
A. Yes.
Q. I am trying to time-sequence the initial transaction in which $90,000 was paid by The Estate Department, that involved several different articles of jewelry; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. I would like to hand you -- have your attorney hand you what has been marked as Estate Department Exhibit 41. For the record, this document has been Bates stamped 25 TED 33 in the lower right-hand corner. Do you have that document in front of you, sir?
A. I do, sir.
Q. I know you don't have your glasses, but can you identify the four jewelry items that are listed on this exhibit?
A. I see a pendant, a silver bracelet and a diamond bracelet, and it looks like the first one, a gold -- I can't make it out.
Q. The first item that's listed here is for a diamond ring that states approximately 7.85 approximate carats; do you see that, sir?
A. I am sorry, sir. I don't.
Q. It says "With GIA certificate."
A. That's the one for 56,000?
Q. That's right.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that your wife's wedding ring?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And who owned that ring, sir?
A. My wife.
Q. Now, turning now to the next item listed, the aquamarine brooch/pendant, who owned that, sir?
A. My wife.
Q. You sold that to The Estate Department for how much?
A. She sold.
Q. Or she did. I am sorry, sir. For how much?
A. $10,000.
Q. The next item underneath that is silver bars; there are two bars.
A. Two silver bars, yes. Those were mine. Those were with me a very, very long time. I should have never sold them.
Q. When did you first acquire those approximately, sir?
A. 15 years. I didn't acquire them. They were given to me as a gift.
MR. TIFFORD: "Acquisition" doesn't necessarily mean purchase.
Q. Were those sold to The Estate Department in the initial transaction for $2,400?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The fourth item, a diamond straight line bracelet, do you see that, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that sold for $21,600 to The Estate Department?
A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Q. Who owned that?
A. My wife.
Q. And did the four items that I just identify represent the four items that were sold in the initial transaction with The Estate Department?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the total amount of money that was paid by The Estate Department was $90,000; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir, if the arithmetic is correct.
Q. I don't know if you recognize -- do you recognize the handwriting at the very bottom of the page?
A. Yes.
Q. Whose handwriting is that?
A. I think they asked me to sign that and I signed that.
Q. Do you recognize the handwriting on the bottom of the page
of Estate Exhibit 41 to be yours?
A. To the left it looks like it’s my wife's and mine, but the one on the right is me.
Q. You're identified the handwriting on the bottom of the page?
A. I'm identifying my signature. I don't know who the other signatures are. I can't make that out.
Q. You just testified that your wife's signature is also there; is that correct?
A. It could be. It looks like a "B." I can't -- it's a little hazy.
Q. Although it's hazy, it appears to be your wife's signature as well as yours; is that correct?
A. I really can't say at this point. I'm sorry. Oh, hold on. Mr. Tifford is showing me --
THE WITNESS: Is that the same exhibit, sir?
MR. TIFFORD: No.
A. He's showing me another exhibit. I am sorry. I am confused. I cannot – I cannot definitively tell you that that's my wife's signature on the left, although it does appear to be a "B," but I can't make it out from this copy. If you have the original or something, I'd be happy to --
Q. Unfortunately, we do not. Let's now turn our attention to Estate Department Exhibit Number 40.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. For the record, this document is Bates stamped in the lower right-hand corner TED 34 sequentially through TED 38?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you have that document in front of you, sir?
A. I do, sir.
Q. Focusing our attention on the second transaction with The
Estate Department, were you present when the second transaction with The Estate Department was consummated?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And were articles of jewelry that your wife owned sold to The Estate Department as part of that second transaction?
A. Very much so.
Q. Were any articles of your jewelry sold as part of that second transaction?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, let's just start on Bates stamp page TED 34.
A. Okay.
Q. There is a reference to a diamond necklace.
A. It wasn't mine, sir. It's my wife's.
Q. The next item that's referenced is a diamond bracelet.
A. My wife's.
Q. Just for the record, I want to be able to ask the question. That way it's clear. Who owned the diamond bracelet, sir? I am going to start back at the first item just to make sure the record is clear. With respect to the diamond necklace that's referred to as the first property item listed on Bates page TED 34 of Estate Department Exhibit 40.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who owned that diamond necklace at the time of its sale to The Estate Department?
A. My wife.
Q. Turning to the next item listed immediately below the first item, the diamond bracelet, who owned the diamond bracelet at the time of the sale to The Estate Department?
A. My wife.
Q. Turn to the next item immediately below the preceding item, pear-shaped diamond, it looks like it's a ring, who owned that at the time of the sale to The Estate Department?
A. My wife.
Q. Immediately below that is a pearl necklace. Who owned the pearl necklace at the time of the sale to The Estate Department?
A. My wife.
Q. Now, if I could direct your attention to the next page, which is Bates stamp TED 35 of Estate Department 40, there is a watch that's referred to here. I can't read the first name.
A. I think -- it looks like "antique."
Q. Did you have men's wristwatches that you had appraised?
A. I had some men's wristwatches, but I didn't have antiques. I think that may be my wife's.
Q. Did you have a wristwatch collection?
A. I had about eight. I had eight watches.
Q. Out of the eight watches, did you sell any of those to The Estate Department?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many, approximately how many of the eight did you sell to The Estate Department?
A. I think it was six or seven.
Q. I know you've testified that you have one watch that your wife gave you as a gift on your trip when you went to Europe --
A. Yes.
Q. -- is that correct?
A. No, it wasn't on my trip to Europe. She bought it here in the United states.
Q. But it was a gift to you; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. With the exception of that watch, did you sell all the other watches in your wristwatch collection?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. With the exception of the wristwatch that your wife gave to you as a gift, were all other watches that you owned sold to The Estate Department in 2007?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And were any of the wristwatches that you sold to The Estate Department in 2007 purchased from Les Bijoux?
A. Did you say all?
Q. Were any?
A. Any? Some were, yes.
Q. Did you fully pay for each one of those from Les Bijoux?
A. Of course I did.
Q. Based on page TED 35, there is a reference to a diamond eternity band; who owned the diamond eternity band that was sold to The Estate Department?
A. Diamond eternity band, my wife.
Q. If you turn to Bates stamp page TED 36, there is a reference to an 18-karat yellow gold bracelet that was sold to The Estate Department. Who owned that at the time of the sale?
A. My wife.
MS. HUGHES: Carl, would it assist you if we would stipulate that Mr. Altomare will testify that each piece of jewelry that's on this document was owned by his wife? I understand that that's the point that you're wanting to make. I don't agree with that conclusion, but --
MR. SCHOEPPL: I think he's saying with the exception of the men's wristwatches.
Q. Is that correct, Mr. Altomare?
A. That's correct.
Q. With the exception of the men's wristwatches, all the other items that are reflected on Estate Department Exhibit Number 40 were owned by your wife?
A. Yes.
MR. SCHOEPPL: I will accept the stipulation. There is only one item I do want to ask specifically about.
Q. And that's the 11.02 carat diamond, who owned that?
A. My wife.
Q. Was that diamond fully paid for?
A. Of course.
Q. Where was that purchased?
A. Les Bijoux.
MR. SCHOEPPL: If I could have a moment to confer with Mr. Tifford, I think I'm just about done.
(Recess taken.)
BY MR. SCHOEPPL:
Q. If you can take a look at Exhibit Number 40, please, and go to Bates stamp TED 38, Mr. Altomare.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you have that in front of you, just look at me.
A. I have it, sir.
Q. Look at the bottom of that page. Do you recognize any of the signatures at the bottom of the page?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What signatures do you recognize?
A. Myself and my wife.
MR. SCHOEPPL: I have no further questions tentative to Ms. Hughes's.
EXAMINATION (CONT'D)
BY MS. HUGHES:
Q. Mr. Altomare, were you given notice by Les Bijoux that you owed them at least $60,000 on the last custom-made diamond ring?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Were you told to or did you offer to return a fancy clock, LeCoultre-something clock?
A. It was on the clock, the $60,000 question, and I said that we didn't want it, and we returned it -- actually, I didn't return it. The gentleman from the estate brought it over there and returned it to them.
Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Kravit or his son or any of the people from The Estate Department that you were involved with the SEC in this case?
A. I don't recall. I do remember discussing that I was involved in lawsuits, but I don't recall specifically whether I spoke to Mr. Kravit about this.
Q. Now, Mr. Schoeppl went through Exhibits 40 and 41 asking you about a series of jewelry which you said belonged to your wife. Many of those pieces, in fact, were paid for by you; is that correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. They were paid for by checks or wire transfers drawn on the bank accounts of Universal Express?
A. It was still -- it was my compensation, but yes.
Q. Then you gave the jewelry to your wife?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. At the time you made those gifts, you lived in Florida; is that correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
MS. HUGHES: I have no further questions on that topic.
MR. SCHOEPPL: For purposes of the record, you're not going to ask any other questions today about The Estate Department while I'm not present; is that correct?
MS. HUGHES: Not that I can think of sitting here at this moment. I guess there's that possibility as we walk through other documents, but I don't intend to.
MR. SCHOEPPL: It's not your intention?
MS. HUGHES: It's not my intention.
MR. SCHOEPPL: Thank you.
(Mr. Schoeppl departs deposition conference room.)
--------------------------- |
