In Legare v. City of New York, No. 159418/2024, 2025 WL 2840633 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Oct. 6, 2025), an employment discrimination case, the court discussed and applied New York’s venue provision, New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 504.
From the decision:
In support of the instant motion, defendants highlight that plaintiff, a detective third grade employed by the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), worked within NYPD precincts located exclusively on Staten Island — the 122nd Precinct and the 123rd Precinct- during her law enforcement career. As such, defendants argue all of the alleged events upon which plaintiff bases her causes of action occurred while she was working in these Richmond County NYPD precincts. Furthermore, defendants argue, even assuming that plaintiff was physically within New York County when she made her alleged complaints, she was ultimately complaining about transactions and occurrences that actually took place in Richmond County. Defendants also argue that, upon information and belief, plaintiff and all of the individually-named NYPD defendants in this action also reside in Richmond County. Defendants contend that because all actions against the City and City officials must be commenced in the County within the City where the causes of action arose, Richmond County is the proper venue for this case. Therefore, defendants argue that this Court should change the venue of this action from New York County to Richmond County.
In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argues that the discrimination alleged against the defendants took place in both New York and Richmond Counties. Plaintiff claims defendants have failed to meet their burden pursuant to CPLR 504(3), which should result in the motion being denied as plaintiff is free to pick between the counties in which the claims arose. However, plaintiff does concede that plaintiff was assigned to a Staten Island command and that a large portion of the events took place in Richmond County, but, plaintiff argues not all of the events took place in Richmond County and a great deal of events and multiple causes of action arose in New York County where NYPD has its principal place of business. Furthermore, plaintiff argues thar CPLR 504(3) is silent as to cases where different causes of actions in the same lawsuit arose in different counties. Plaintiff also asserts all retaliatory transfers, overtime and promotions are maintained in New York County which had a discriminatory and retaliatory effect on Plaintiff as those decisions were made in New York County. Specifically, plaintiff brings distinct strict liability claims pursuant to New York City Human Rights Law 8-107 (13) (b) and plaintiff argues those claims relate to strict liability for defendant City of New York and if it knew about the conduct herein but failed to take action. All in all, plaintiff argues those claims arose in New York County. Moreover, plaintiff contends both the New York City Law Department maintain an office in New York County which is where depositions and other discovery will take place in this matter regardless of whether or not the matter has the venue changed to Richmond County. Plaintiff claims defendants are not seeking a change of venue for ease of litigation but rather to gain a strategic advantage in a more favorable venue. In sum, plaintiff argues since many of the discriminatory decisions that led plaintiff to being harmed took place in New York County, venue could be Richmond County or New York County, at the discretion of the plaintiff.
Pursuant to CPLR 504(3), “the place of trial for all actions against counties, cities, towns, villages, school districts and district corporations of any of their officers, boards or departments shall be…. for the City of New York, in the County within the city in which the cause of action arose, or if it arose outside the city, in the county of New York.” This statute “implements the public policy of giving all due consideration to the convenience of public officials, and should be complied with absent compelling countervailing circumstances” (Smith v. City of New York, 60 AD3d 540, 541 [1st Dept 2009] [internal citations omitted]).
Here, plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that she worked within NYPD precincts located exclusively on Staten Island during her law enforcement career. Accordingly, all of the alleged events upon which plaintiff bases her cause of action occurred while she was working in these Richmond County NYPD precincts. Plaintiff and all of the individually named NYPD defendants in this action also reside in Richmond County. As such, this Court finds that plaintiff failed to show any compelling countervailing circumstances to keep this action in New York County. As such, Richmond County is the proper venue for this case.
Based on this, the court granted defendant’s motion, such that the venue of this action will be changed to New York County to Richmond County.