Court Holds That Signing Filings In New York County Irrelevant For The Issue Of Venue And Grants Motion To Transfer Venue

On May 26, 2024, Justice Andrea Masley granted a motion to change venue to Nassau County. Defendants in Burman v. Burman, Index No. 655281/2023, moved to change venue in a case arising from plaintiff’s alleged exclusion from the Engel Burman (“EB”) enterprise. After rejecting defendants’ argument that venue in New York County was improper because none of the parties reside in New York County because plaintiff alleged a “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” pursuant to CPLR 503(a), the Court nevertheless granted the motion for other reasons. The Court explained:

[U]pon 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. (NYSCEF 56, Jan Burman Aff ¶ 24; NYSCEF 137, AC ¶¶ 87-88.) All major decisions regarding the operation of the business were made at the same offices in Nassau County and "[t]he events relevant to this dispute necessarily occurred in the counties in which the parties reside and the relevant entities maintain their offices." (NYSCEF 56, Jan Burman Aff , ¶ 23.) B2K, which allegedly received EB's assets, maintains its offices and principal place of business in Nassau County. (Id., ¶¶ 6-8.) 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. (Id., ¶¶ 19-22; NYSCEF 57, SPE List; NYSCEF 137, AC, ¶¶ 31, 38.) Further, only four of EB's projects are in New York County. (NYSCEF 57, SPE list.) B2K and the special purpose entities maintain their books in records in Suffolk County and previously maintained their books and records in Nassau County. (NYSCEF 56, Jan Burman Aff, ¶ 25.)

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. (NYSCEF 128, Scott Burman Aff, ¶ 8.) 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. (Id., ¶¶ 51-57.)

Further, plaintiff's status as a signatory on filings in New York County relating to 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 (see id., ¶¶ 43- 48), these events cannot be said to constitute a 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. (NYSCEF 137, AC,- ¶¶ 65-74.)

(footnotes omitted).

The attorneys at Schlam Stone & Dolan frequently litigate issues relating to venue. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning such issues.