Mr. Netanel's Version
- Two witnesses testified on behalf of the defendant: Mr. Netanel and Attorney Braunstein. Let us first turn to the testimony of Mr. Netanel, the defendant's husband, and the party who was in contact with the defendant's representatives. As stated above, Mr. Netanel testified in the course of the evidentiary hearing of March 4, 2024, while Adv. Braunstein testified already in the course of the hearing of January 1, 2024. However, given that Adv. Braunstein was not in the secret of the matter, as she testifies to herself and as will be proven to be Lachman, I will first demand the testimony of Mr. Netanel.
- According to Mr. Netanel, the plaintiff received possession of the store during 2018, upon receipt of Form 4, when he did not know how to indicate the exact date of receipt of possession according to him (p. 6, paras. 29-31). In the margins of this matter, it should be noted that according to Mr. Netanel, the delivery of all the stores, both the two stores of Dior A.P.Z. and the store in question, took place on the same date (p. 30, paras. 34-39). It seems that there is no dispute that the delivery of all the stores was on the same date, and the dispute between the parties extends in relation to the question of the exact date of actual delivery. In any event, Mr. Netanel further emphasizes again that possession of the store was given upon receipt of Form 4 from the Local Planning and Building Committee, i.e., on October 28, 2018 (Appendix J to Mr. Netanel's affidavit). In response to the plaintiff's counsel's question, Mr. Netanel clarifies that he cannot point to any document that was sent to the plaintiff that verifies his claim (from p. 7, s. 5 to p. 5), while throughout his testimony Mr. Netanel clarifies that he dealt with Mr. Appel in an informal manner, and therefore no document was provided on the matter. In the margins, I will note that I find difficulty in this argument in view of the plaintiff's representatives' signature on the delivery protocol, and the addition of the inscription "long ago", as follows.
- Netanel also finds it difficult to clarify the contradiction between what was stated in his affidavit and his answer in his cross-examination as follows. In paragraph 28 of his affidavit, Mr. Netanel states the following:
"After receiving Form 4 in October 2018, Mr. Appel and his daughter received keys to stores and entered them frequently. Thus, they were given possession."