On May 26, 2024, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Burman v. Burman, 2024 NY Slip Op. 31856(U), holding that the location of counsel and witnesses was an insufficient basis for venue, explaining:
Except where otherwise prescribed by law, the place of trial shall be in the county in which one of the parties resided when it was commenced; the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or, if none of the parties then resided in the state, in any county designated by the plaintiff. The place of trial of an action shall be in the county designated by the plaintiff, unless the place of trial is changed to another county by order upon motion, or by consent. The court, upon motion, may change the place of trial of an action where: 1. the county designated for that purpose is not a proper county. A defendant seeking to change venue bears the burden of showing, by competent proof, that plaintiff’s choice of venue on this basis was improper. If defendant meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to plaintiff to establish that the selected venue is proper.
Defendants first argue that New York County is not a proper venue because none of the parties reside in New York County. This argument is unavailing. In 2017, the legislature amended CPLR 503 (a) to provide for venue in the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. Here, plaintiff relies on this added basis, alleging that venue is proper in New York County because substantial amount of the acts and transactions in issue took place in this county and various real estate developments in issue in this case are located in this county. Defendants’ reliance on authority discussing pre-2017 version of CPLR 503 (a) is misplaced.
However, upon review of the evidence defendants submitted, the court concludes that defendants have demonstrated that New York is not the proper venue. The evidence shows that EB’s business is run from Nassau County where a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims took place. The alleged partner meeting where Krieger stated that he no longer wished to partner with plaintiff took place at the offices located in Nassau County. All major decisions regarding the operation of the business were made at the same offices in Nassau County and the events relevant to this dispute necessarily occurred in the counties in which the parties reside and the relevant entities maintain their offices. B2K, which allegedly received EB’s assets, maintains its offices and principal place of business in Nassau County.
Additionally, most of the special purpose entities created in connection with EB’s projects in which plaintiff and individual defendants allegedly were members have their principal offices in Nassau County (78 entities), with no entity having its principal office in New York County. Further, only four of EB’s projects are in New York County. B2K and the special purpose entities maintain their books in records in Suffolk County and previously maintained their books and records in Nassau County.
Plaintiff, in turn, fails to meet its burden to show that New York County is in fact a proper venue. Plaintiff avers that New York County has the same or greater asset value for EB as compared to Nassau and/or Suffolk County and that New York County is a substantial revenue generator for EB. However, these parameters of EB’s business do not demonstrate that substantial part of the events that give rise to plaintiff’s claims took place in New York County. Plaintiff’s reliance on the location of his attorney, defendants’ attorneys, and defendant’s public relations firm in New York County is unavailing for the same reason.Further, plaintiff’s status as a signatory on filings in New York County relating projects in that county is irrelevant for the issue of venue in this case. Although plaintiff also avers that multiple meetings have been held in New York County with Krieger, architects, engineers, and other construction professionals regarding an Upper West Side project, and that the breakdown of his relationship with Krieger was due to Krieger’s alleged mistakes with respect to the Upper West Side project, these events cannot be said to constitute substantial part of the events from which plaintiff’s claims arise. It is not alleged that these events regarding the Upper West Side project were in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy to force plaintiff out of EB’s business.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).