252685 St LLC v Feifei Gu 2025 NY Slip Op 30009(U) January 3, 2025 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 505280/2024 Judge: Joy F. Campanelli 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. FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2025 04:58 PM INDEX NO. 505280/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS: IAS PART 6 -------------------------------------------------------------X 252685 St LLC, Hang Chen, Emily Hui Chen- Liang, Index No.: 505280/2024 Plaintiffs, DECISION AND ORDER -against- Hon. Joy F. Campanelli, J.S.C. Feifei Gu and Yu Hin Chan
Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF Nos.:
Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/ Petition/Cross Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed 67-92, 120-123, 124-125 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) Affidavits/ Affirmations in Reply 127,128 Other Papers:
Plaintiffs move by Order to Show Cause dated August 28, 2024, seq. no. 3, to hold
Defendants in contempt of court for alleged violations of this Court’s Order dated May 10, 2024.
On November 10, 2024, Defendant Yu Hin Chan cross-moved by Notice of Motion, seq.
no. 5 for the following relief: (1) The recusal of this Court; (2) the disqualification of Mark
Salem, Esq.; (3) the dismissal of the case in its entirety; (4) an order vacating this Court’s May
10, 2024, and August 28, 2024, Orders; (5) a Traverse Hearing; (6) an order staying any
contempt hearing. On the same day, Defendant FeiFei Gu cross-moved by Notice of Motion, seq.
no. 6 for an order dismissing the case in its entirety.
Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause, seq. no. 3, and Defendants’ Cross Motions, seq. no. 5
and 6, were scheduled for oral arguments on November 13, 2024, and subsequently adjourned to
1 of 5 [* 1] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2025 04:58 PM INDEX NO. 505280/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2025
December 4, 2024. On December 4, 2024, when the motion calendar was called, Plaintiff was
not present, and their Order to Show Cause was marked off the calendar.
As Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause was marked off, it would be common practice for
Defendants’ Cross-Motions seq. no. 5, and 6, to be denied as nullities. However, given the
severity of certain allegations, and the relief sought in Defendant Yu Hin Chan’s Cross-Motion,
despite Plaintiffs’ default, the Court has an obligation to evaluate the sufficiency of the motion
papers.
In support of the Cross-Motion for recusal, Defendant Yu Hin Chan alleges that this
Court had ex-parte communications with Plaintiff’s attorney Mark Salem, and that Defendants
were deprived of their due process rights by this Court’s part rules. This Court’s May 10, 2024,
Order included a brief summary of both parties’ allegations, including Plaintiff’s contention that
a process server accidentally hit the Defendants’ illegally placed camera with his foot. Now, in
support of the present Cross-Motion for recusal, Defendant Chan argues that this allegation,
regarding the process server and Defendant’s illegally placed camera, was never mentioned in
“Court filed documents nor in Oral Arguments[.]” Therefore, Defendant postulates that
Plaintiff’s attorney must have had ex-parte communications with the Court and thus, recusal is
necessary. Additionally, Defendant Chan argues recusal is necessary because “On 04/10/24, Joy
F. Campanelli’s two court attorneys heard the oral arguments, judge Joy F. Campanelli was
never present in Court, as such Defendants were deprived of due process rights to be heard by
judge[.]”
This Court has not engaged in any ex-parte communications with either party in this
matter. The Court, having read all papers submitted in support of and opposition to the
underlying Order to Show Cause seq. no. 1, learned of Plaintiff’s allegation regarding the
2 of 5 [* 2] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2025 04:58 PM INDEX NO. 505280/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2025
process server accidently hitting Defendants’ illegally placed camera, directly from Plaintiff’s
supporting papers. Paragraph 37 of Plaintiff’s Affirmation in Support reads in part “the Process
server unintentionally hit the Defendants illegally placed camera with his foot[.]” Thus,
Defendant Yu Hin Chan’s allegations and call for recusal are entirely baseless.
Alternatively, Defendant Chan seeks the recusal of this Court based on an alleged
deprivation of Defendants’ due process rights. Under Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court
& the County Court section 202.8(d), the Court can, in its discretion, decide whether oral
arguments on a motion or order to show cause are necessary. Oral arguments on motions are
solely for the benefit of the judge and at the judge’s discretion. In the present case, on April 10,
2024, the Court declined to hear arguments on Plaintiffs’ Order to Show Cause. Instead, as a
courtesy, the two court attorneys attempted to explain court procedure to the defendants and that
the motions would be submitted. In its discretion, the Court took the matters on submission as
argument was unnecessary. As such, the Defendants due process rights were not violated by the
Court. Additionally, a decision on a motion to recuse is discretionary and within the personal
conscience of the Court. People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 405, 516 N.E.2d 200, 201 (1987). As
no ex parte communications took place between Plaintiff and this Court and no due process
rights were violated regarding the Court taking Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause on submission,
there is no basis for recusal.
Defendant Chan also cross moves for the disqualification of Plaintiff’s counsel, Mark
Salem, esq. “[A] party's entitlement to be represented in ongoing litigation by counsel of his own
choosing is a valued right which should not be abridged absent a clear showing that
disqualification is warranted. Feeley v. Midas Properties, Inc., 199 A.D.2d 238, 604 N.Y.S.2d
3 of 5 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2025 04:58 PM INDEX NO. 505280/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2025
240 (1993). Defendant Chan’s supporting papers do not demonstrate a clear showing that
disqualification is warranted.
Defendant Chan cross-moves to vacate this Court’s prior Orders dated May 10, 2024, and
August 28, 2024. On May 10, 2024, this Court issued an Order enjoining Defendants Feifei Gu
and Yu Hin Chan, inter alia, from contacting Re/Max for the purposes of discussing or reporting
Plaintiffs’ actions or inactions, and from publicly posting any remarks, or reviews about the
Plaintiffs, their employer Re/Max, Susana Chan Chong, Plaintiff’s attorney Mark Salem, Esq.,
and Mark Salem Law, P.C. After the May 10, 2024, Order, Defendants initiated several lawsuits
against Mark Salem, Mark Salem Law, P.C., and ReMax, among others, in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. In addition to the initiation of multiple federal lawsuits,
Defendants emailed certain complaints relating to these lawsuits to 134 different Re/Max agents.
Pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 5015, upon a motion, the Court which rendered the order in
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
252685 St LLC v Feifei Gu 2025 NY Slip Op 30009(U) January 3, 2025 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 505280/2024 Judge: Joy F. Campanelli 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. FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2025 04:58 PM INDEX NO. 505280/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS: IAS PART 6 -------------------------------------------------------------X 252685 St LLC, Hang Chen, Emily Hui Chen- Liang, Index No.: 505280/2024 Plaintiffs, DECISION AND ORDER -against- Hon. Joy F. Campanelli, J.S.C. Feifei Gu and Yu Hin Chan
Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF Nos.:
Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/ Petition/Cross Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed 67-92, 120-123, 124-125 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) Affidavits/ Affirmations in Reply 127,128 Other Papers:
Plaintiffs move by Order to Show Cause dated August 28, 2024, seq. no. 3, to hold
Defendants in contempt of court for alleged violations of this Court’s Order dated May 10, 2024.
On November 10, 2024, Defendant Yu Hin Chan cross-moved by Notice of Motion, seq.
no. 5 for the following relief: (1) The recusal of this Court; (2) the disqualification of Mark
Salem, Esq.; (3) the dismissal of the case in its entirety; (4) an order vacating this Court’s May
10, 2024, and August 28, 2024, Orders; (5) a Traverse Hearing; (6) an order staying any
contempt hearing. On the same day, Defendant FeiFei Gu cross-moved by Notice of Motion, seq.
no. 6 for an order dismissing the case in its entirety.
Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause, seq. no. 3, and Defendants’ Cross Motions, seq. no. 5
and 6, were scheduled for oral arguments on November 13, 2024, and subsequently adjourned to
1 of 5 [* 1] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2025 04:58 PM INDEX NO. 505280/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2025
December 4, 2024. On December 4, 2024, when the motion calendar was called, Plaintiff was
not present, and their Order to Show Cause was marked off the calendar.
As Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause was marked off, it would be common practice for
Defendants’ Cross-Motions seq. no. 5, and 6, to be denied as nullities. However, given the
severity of certain allegations, and the relief sought in Defendant Yu Hin Chan’s Cross-Motion,
despite Plaintiffs’ default, the Court has an obligation to evaluate the sufficiency of the motion
papers.
In support of the Cross-Motion for recusal, Defendant Yu Hin Chan alleges that this
Court had ex-parte communications with Plaintiff’s attorney Mark Salem, and that Defendants
were deprived of their due process rights by this Court’s part rules. This Court’s May 10, 2024,
Order included a brief summary of both parties’ allegations, including Plaintiff’s contention that
a process server accidentally hit the Defendants’ illegally placed camera with his foot. Now, in
support of the present Cross-Motion for recusal, Defendant Chan argues that this allegation,
regarding the process server and Defendant’s illegally placed camera, was never mentioned in
“Court filed documents nor in Oral Arguments[.]” Therefore, Defendant postulates that
Plaintiff’s attorney must have had ex-parte communications with the Court and thus, recusal is
necessary. Additionally, Defendant Chan argues recusal is necessary because “On 04/10/24, Joy
F. Campanelli’s two court attorneys heard the oral arguments, judge Joy F. Campanelli was
never present in Court, as such Defendants were deprived of due process rights to be heard by
judge[.]”
This Court has not engaged in any ex-parte communications with either party in this
matter. The Court, having read all papers submitted in support of and opposition to the
underlying Order to Show Cause seq. no. 1, learned of Plaintiff’s allegation regarding the
2 of 5 [* 2] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2025 04:58 PM INDEX NO. 505280/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2025
process server accidently hitting Defendants’ illegally placed camera, directly from Plaintiff’s
supporting papers. Paragraph 37 of Plaintiff’s Affirmation in Support reads in part “the Process
server unintentionally hit the Defendants illegally placed camera with his foot[.]” Thus,
Defendant Yu Hin Chan’s allegations and call for recusal are entirely baseless.
Alternatively, Defendant Chan seeks the recusal of this Court based on an alleged
deprivation of Defendants’ due process rights. Under Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court
& the County Court section 202.8(d), the Court can, in its discretion, decide whether oral
arguments on a motion or order to show cause are necessary. Oral arguments on motions are
solely for the benefit of the judge and at the judge’s discretion. In the present case, on April 10,
2024, the Court declined to hear arguments on Plaintiffs’ Order to Show Cause. Instead, as a
courtesy, the two court attorneys attempted to explain court procedure to the defendants and that
the motions would be submitted. In its discretion, the Court took the matters on submission as
argument was unnecessary. As such, the Defendants due process rights were not violated by the
Court. Additionally, a decision on a motion to recuse is discretionary and within the personal
conscience of the Court. People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 405, 516 N.E.2d 200, 201 (1987). As
no ex parte communications took place between Plaintiff and this Court and no due process
rights were violated regarding the Court taking Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause on submission,
there is no basis for recusal.
Defendant Chan also cross moves for the disqualification of Plaintiff’s counsel, Mark
Salem, esq. “[A] party's entitlement to be represented in ongoing litigation by counsel of his own
choosing is a valued right which should not be abridged absent a clear showing that
disqualification is warranted. Feeley v. Midas Properties, Inc., 199 A.D.2d 238, 604 N.Y.S.2d
3 of 5 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2025 04:58 PM INDEX NO. 505280/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2025
240 (1993). Defendant Chan’s supporting papers do not demonstrate a clear showing that
disqualification is warranted.
Defendant Chan cross-moves to vacate this Court’s prior Orders dated May 10, 2024, and
August 28, 2024. On May 10, 2024, this Court issued an Order enjoining Defendants Feifei Gu
and Yu Hin Chan, inter alia, from contacting Re/Max for the purposes of discussing or reporting
Plaintiffs’ actions or inactions, and from publicly posting any remarks, or reviews about the
Plaintiffs, their employer Re/Max, Susana Chan Chong, Plaintiff’s attorney Mark Salem, Esq.,
and Mark Salem Law, P.C. After the May 10, 2024, Order, Defendants initiated several lawsuits
against Mark Salem, Mark Salem Law, P.C., and ReMax, among others, in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. In addition to the initiation of multiple federal lawsuits,
Defendants emailed certain complaints relating to these lawsuits to 134 different Re/Max agents.
Pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 5015, upon a motion, the Court which rendered the order in
question may relieve a party from its terms upon the grounds of excusable default, newly
discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct of the adverse party, lack of jurisdiction, or reversal,
modification or vacatur of a prior judgment. N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5015 (McKinney). Defendant Chan
fails to demonstrate entitlement to vacatur of this Court’s Orders on any the grounds specified in
C.P.L.R. § 5015.
The portion of Defendant Chan’s Cross-Motion, seq. no. 5, to stay a contempt hearing is
denied as moot. As no contempt hearing has been scheduled at the time this Cross-Motion was
taken on submission, there is no proceeding to stay.
The portion of Defendant Chan’s Cross-Motion, seq. no. 5, seeking a traverse hearing is
denied as Defendant Chan’s Answer, dated March 25, 2024, failed to raise lack of jurisdiction as
an affirmative defense, therefore waiving this relief.
4 of 5 [* 4] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2025 04:58 PM INDEX NO. 505280/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2025
Lastly, both Defendants’ cross-move for dismissal of this case in its entirety. In support
of this portion of his motion, Defendant Chan argues that the case should be dismissed because
Mark Salem, esq. should be disqualified, the Complaint is unverified by Plaintiff, and “Referring
to NYSCEF doc#116, only susana chong chen is the agent, emily hui chen-liang and hang chen
are not agents of 252685 ST LLC, therefore, they have no legal capacity to sue Defendants in
this case.”
Defendant Chan’s arguments in support of the motion to dismiss are not cogent, they lack
a discernable legal basis, and are not supported by evidence in admissible form. Therefore, the
Court cannot grant Defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss.
Defendant Gu’s Cross-Motion to dismiss, seq. no. 6, is denied as this filing violates an
Administrative Order, dated January 8, 2024, enjoining her from making any filings in existing
cases absent a certification of merit from an attorney. On January 8, 2024, by administrative
order, Defendant FeiFei Gu was enjoined from commencing any new court action via poor
person application or making any filings on existing cases unless accompanied by a certificate of
an attorney stating that the filing has been examined and the attorney believes there is merit to
Defendant Gu’s contentions.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant YU HIN CHAN’s Cross-Motion seq. no. 5, is DENIED; and
it is further
ORDERED that Defendant FEIFEI GU’s Cross-Motion seq. no. 6, is DENIED.
This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
DATED: January 3, 2025 Brooklyn, New York ____________________________ Hon. Joy F. Campanelli, J.S.C.
5 of 5 [* 5]