Zhou Ni v. Tao Lin

2025 NY Slip Op 32900(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: August 19, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 151689/2019
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

1 The evidentiary hearing took place on May 7, 2024, at the conclusion of which the court directed counsel to secure a copy of the transcript of such hearing by June 3, 2025. Counsel did not secure a copy of such transcript until January 16, 2025. 151689/2019 NI, ZHOU vs. LIN, TAO Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 002

1 of 4 [* 1] 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

2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 151689/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/19/2025

the lawyer was there. A lot of people there, too”, and “I only

knew that I was told the inventory will be removed and some people

will come to remove the inventory” and “Other people were removing

the inventory. I did not remove anything. I just stayed there.”

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

3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 151689/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/19/2025

which he represented was stored in the warehouse located at 1036

Grand Street, Brooklyn, New York. Aside from Respondent Lin’s

invocation of his privilege against self-incrimination, the only

other testimony elicited was Lin’s statements, inter alia, that “A

lot of people came to remove the inventory”, and “I did not remove

the inventory”. Such testimony neither clearly nor convincingly

established that Respondent Lin violated the mandate that he turn

over to Petitioners the inventory stored in the warehouse located

at 1036 Grand Street, Brooklyn, New York. The Petitioners failed

to call any other witnesses to testify with respect to who were

the people, if any, who removed the inventory. Such additional

evidence was a factor necessary to establish Petitioners

entitlement to an order adjudicating Respondent Lin as in civil

contempt of this court’s order filed on July 18, 2019. , ~ ,d - } ~ 20250819191449DJAME557125748149D44FF82A9D85FDC93AE5E

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

4 of 4 [* 4]