action, plaintiff initially venued his action in Kings County, only to have defendants seek to have that venue moved to Richmond County instead, which Supreme Court promptly granted.
That change of venue, however, was incorrect, says the Appellate Division. Venue was set in Brooklyn for this was the location of defendant Dr. Lee. Defendants contended, however, that none of the parties resided in Kings County and that Lee maintained his residence on Staten Island.
The court began by reminding that under 503(d), the county of an individual’s office is, indeed, a proper county for the action to be venued. Whether or not Dr. Lee lived in one county, but practiced medicine in another, was immaterial. “In the context of determining the proper venue of an action, a party may have more than one residence.”
In order to change venue under 510(1), defendants have the burden of showing that plaintiff’s choice of venue was wrong “on the day the action was commenced,” something defendants could not do here. Absent that showing, the plaintiff is not required to establish that his selected venue was proper. Defendants had never demonstrated that Kings County was improper, so Supreme Court should have denied the motion to cross the river. Next stop? Brooklyn.