On July 5, 2023, the Second Department issued a decision in Peet’s Coffee & Tea HoldCo, Inc. v. North Am. Elite Ins. Co., 2023 NY Slip Op. 03703, holding that a motion to change venue fails when the venue chosen by the plaintiff is permissible, explaining:
CPLR 503(a) provides, in pertinent part, that 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; or the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. To prevail on a motion pursuant to CPLR 510(1) to change venue, a defendant must show that the plaintiff’s choice of venue is improper and that the defendant’s choice of venue is proper. Only if a defendant meets this burden is the plaintiff required to establish, in opposition, that the venue selected was proper.
Here, although venue would be proper in New York County based upon the defendant’s residence in that county, the defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing that the plaintiff’s choice of venue in Kings County was improper. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the plaintiff operated insured locations in Kings County for which coverage was sought for business losses. In support of the motion to change venue the defendant submitted, among other things, an affidavit from one of its own employees which substantiated the plaintiff’s claim that it operated insured locations in Kings County. Thus, the record reflects that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Kings County. Since the defendant failed to meet its initial burden of demonstrating that Kings County was an improper venue, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to change venue.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).