Zhou Ni v. Tao Lin

Zhou Ni v Tao Lin 2025 NY Slip Op 32900(U) August 19, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 151689/2019 Judge: Debra A. James Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

INDEX NO. 151689/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/19/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. DEBRA A. JAMES PART 59 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 151689/2019 ZHOU NI, JIN ZHANG, QIAO CHEN, HAISHENG LIN, and NZCLT PARTNERSHIP, MOTION DATE 01/16/20251 Petitioners, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 -v- TAO LIN, TOM LIN KITCHEN EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY DECISION + ORDER ON INC.,MANN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, and 187 MOORE REAL ESTATE CORP., MOTION Respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36 were read on this motion to/for CONTEMPT .

ORDER Upon the foregoing documents and the testimony at the hearing on May 7, 2024, it is ORDERED that to the extent that Petitioners seek, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 750(a)(3), to adjudicate Respondent Tao Lin in criminal contempt for violating the Order and Judgment filed on July 18, 2019, which, pursuant to CPLR § 5225, directed such Respondent to turn over certain specified property in his possession custody and control which property was presently in a warehouse located at 1036 Grand Street, Brooklyn, New York, such

INDEX NO. 151689/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/19/2025 relief is dismissed as moot as Petitioners discontinued such application to hold respondent Lin in criminal contempt at the beginning of the contempt hearing that took place on May 7, 2024; and it is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED that to the extent that Petitioners seek, pursuant to Judiciary Law §§ 753(a)(8) and 756, to adjudicate Respondent Tao Lin in civil contempt for violating the Order and Judgment filed on July 19, 2019, pursuant to CPLR § 5225, that directed such Respondent to turn over certain specified property in his possession custody and control which property is in a warehouse located at 1036 Grand Street, Brooklyn, New York, as set forth in Invoices, specifying respondent Tom Lin Kitchen Equipment & Supply Inc, as buyer, such petition is denied.

DECISION To the question “My question is this. Did you turn over to Petitioners in this case all of the inventory that is specified in the documents which have been marked as Petitioner’s 1, Petitioner’s 2 and Petitioner’s 3 ?”, Respondent Lin responded by “invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege”. In addition, Respondent Lin testified “A lot of people came to remove inventory. A lot of them – a lot of people, several vehicles there. I was just standing there, okay” and “Yes. In December 2019 when people came – yes, the inventory was removed,

151689/2019 NI, ZHOU vs. LIN, TAO Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 002

Counsel for petitioners rested his case without requesting a continuance to secure the presence of Derek Skuzenski, the sheriff, and/or Petitioner Tao Li.

With respect to the movant’s burden of proof in a proceeding for civil contempt, the Court of Appeals stated in El-Dehdan v El- Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 (2015), “In order to carry her burden, plaintiff had to establish by clear and convincing evidence defendant’s violation of the [subject] order.

In El-Dehdan, supra, p. 37, the Court of Appeals also held that “a negative inference may be drawn in the civil contempt context when a party invokes the right against self-incrimination.”

However, the Appellate Division, First Department, in DeBonis v Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299 (1989) ruled: “Imposition of a civil sanction may not be based solely upon petitioner’s assertion of the Fifth Amendment.

Silence may only be one of a number of factors which the finder of fact considers in making its determination” (citations omitted and bold added).”

Based on such controlling precedent, this court finds Petitioners have not established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent Lin failed to turn over to Petitioners the inventory specified in the Invoices admitted into evidence, and 151689/2019 NI, ZHOU vs. LIN, TAO Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 002

8/19/2025 DATE DEBRA A. JAMES, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

□ □ GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

151689/2019 NI, ZHOU vs. LIN, TAO Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 002