## Facts

- A law firm and related plaintiffs sued a former associated attorney, Kenneth W. Bond, in New York Supreme Court, Westchester County.
- Bond moved under CPLR 511(a) to change venue from Westchester County to New York County, asserting convenience of material witnesses.
- Plaintiffs cross-moved to keep venue in Westchester County.
- The venue motion and cross-motion were noticed and argued in Supreme Court, Bronx County, a county adjoining Westchester but otherwise unconnected to the dispute.
- The parties’ ability to bring the contested motion in an adjoining county rested on CPLR 2212(a), which permits motions to be heard in the district where the action is triable or in an adjoining county.

## Issues

1. Whether a contested venue motion in an action pending in Westchester County may properly be noticed and heard in Bronx County under CPLR 2212(a).
2. Whether the defendant satisfied CPLR 511(a)’s requirements for changing venue based on the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice.

## Decision

- The court entertained the motion practice in Bronx County as authorized by CPLR 2212(a), despite noting Bronx County had no substantive connection to the action.
- The court denied Bond’s motion to change venue from Westchester County to New York County.
- The court granted plaintiffs’ cross-motion to retain venue in Westchester County.
- The court criticized CPLR 2212(a)’s adjoining-county motion practice as outdated and urged legislative reconsideration.

## Legal Principles

- Under CPLR 2212(a), a contested motion may be noticed to be heard in the judicial district where the action is triable or in a county adjoining the county where the action is triable, even if the adjoining county lacks a factual nexus to the dispute.
- A party seeking a venue change for witness convenience under CPLR 511(a) bears the burden to make a detailed showing, typically identifying material witnesses, the substance of expected testimony, and how the requested forum would materially improve convenience and serve justice.
- A plaintiff’s selected venue is generally given deference absent a strong, specific showing justifying transfer.
- The adjoining-county motion practice was criticized as facilitating judge shopping and imposing administrative burdens inconsistent with modern case assignment practices.

## Conclusion

The court kept the case in Westchester County because the defendant did not make the required, specific CPLR 511(a) showing that witness convenience and justice warranted transfer to New York County, and it used the procedural posture to question the continued validity of CPLR 2212(a)’s adjoining-county motion rule.


Sullivan & Donovan, L.L.P. v. Bond, 175 Misc. 2d 386, 669 N.Y.S.2d 131 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Cnty. 1997)