Defendants Carlo Beauvoir ("Beauvoir"), Dyna Louis ("Louis"), and Suse Edmonds ("Edmonds") have moved this court for an order to change venue pursuant to CPLR §§510(1) & 510(3). The motion is determined as follows.

This is an action seeking a declaratory judgment to relieve plaintiff's obligation to provide automobile insurance coverage for defendants. Plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired to commit insurance fraud against plaintiff by staging an automobile accident on March 26, 2002. Defendants now seek to change venue from Nassau County to Kings County pursuant to CPLR §510(1), arguing that plaintiff, a foreign insurance corporation, has not properly designated Nassau County as a proper venue based on residence. CPLR §503(c). Plaintiff maintains an office located in Nassau County at 1981 Marcus Avenue, Suite E110, Lake Success, New York 11042-1038. Defendant further alleges that the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by changing the place of trial to Kings [*2]County, pursuant to CPLR §510(3).

A. Defendants' claim that plaintiff chose improper venue based on residence.

Before filing a motion to change venue based on plaintiff's choice, defendants must serve, with or before service of their answer, a written demand that venue be changed to a county they specify as proper. Thereafter, defendants may move to change the place of trial within fifteen days after service of the demand, provided plaintiff does not consent to defendants' demand within five days. CPLR §§511(a) & 511(b). The Court notes that defendants in the instant matter did not specify a proper county within their answer and merely stated that "The venue of the action is improper."

CPLR §503(c) provides that a foreign corporation authorized to transact business in the state, shall be deemed a resident of the county in which its principal office is located. Defendants contend that plaintiff has not designated Nassau County as a proper venue based on residence as plaintiff's home office is located at "One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, Illinois, 61710". With respect to what constitutes a principal office for purposes of CPLR §503(c), a foreign insurance company doing business in New York is exempt from designating a principal office in New York within its filings with the secretary of state. See Insurance Law §1102(d); Providence Washington Insurance Co. v. Squier Corp., 31 AD2d 514; Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 11 Misc 3d 1086(A); Dubiac v. Travellers Ins. Corp., 121 Misc 2d 1090. Thus, since plaintiff has not designated a principal office within New York, the issue arises as to whether a foreign insurance company with offices throughout the state may bring an action in any county where they maintain an office.

New York's appellate courts have not established the scope of available venues to foreign insurance companies with offices throughout the state. However, at least two lower courts have determined that a foreign insurance company may bring an action in any county where they maintain an office. See Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 11 Misc 3d 1086(A) (Sup.Ct.West.Co. 2006); General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Allcity Insurance Co., 53 Misc 2d 596 (Sup.Ct.Nass.Co. 1967). Adopting the rule of the lower courts in the present matter will not prejudice defendants, since they are still afforded the opportunity to challenge an unfair choice of venue, i.e., to insure an impartial trial or to accommodate the convenience of material witnesses. CPLR §§510(2) & 510(3). Furthermore, allowing a foreign insurance company residence in any county where they maintain an office is consistent with CPLR §503(a), which provides that a party residing in more than one county shall be deemed a resident of each such county. Moreover, "if the corporation is of a kind not required to designate an office in its filed papers, it may be deemed a resident of the county in which it actually maintains an office." David D. Siegel, New York Practice, Fourth Edition, §119. Therefore, since plaintiff has provided a sufficient statutory basis for residence in Nassau County, defendants' request to change venue based on plaintiff's improper designation is without merit.

B. Defendants' claim of inconvenience of material witnesses.

Where the forum chosen by plaintiff is proper, defendant may move to change venue on discretionary grounds, i.e., to insure an impartial trial or to accommodate the convenience of material witnesses, within a reasonable time after commencement of the action. CPLR §511(a). [*3]A discretionary change of venue pursuant to CPLR §510(3) requires a detailed evidentiary showing that the convenience of nonparty witnesses would be served by the granting of such relief. O'Brien v. Vassar Brothers Hospital, 207 AD2d 169, 170. The movant must produce an affidavit in support of the motion that sets forth: (1) the names, addresses, and occupations of the prospective witnesses; (2) the facts to which the witnesses are expected to testify at trial; (3) that the prospective witnesses have been contacted and are willing to testify; and (4) how the prospective witnesses would be inconvenienced if the relief were not granted. Id., at 172-173. Once this showing has been made, the opponent must produce evidence to establish the basis for its choice of venue. Thorner-Sidney Press, Inc. v. Merling Marx & Seidma Inc., 115 AD2d 328. The Court maintains discretion in determining whether granting a change of venue is proper. O'Brien v. Vassar Brothers Hospital, supra at 171.

In the present matter, defendants failed to competently address these evidentiary requirements. O'Brien v. Vassar Brothers Hospital, supra. In support of their motion, defendants submit the Police Accident Reports for the accident in question, stating the name and address of one potential witness to the accident. Defendants' motion papers merely refer to the Police Accident Reports without providing any information regarding the willingness of the witness to testify, the facts to which the witness is expected to testify at trial, or reasons for any potential inconvenience. Defendants rely solely on the fact that the witness is a resident of Kings County, which is insufficient to grant defendants' requested relief. O'Brien v. Vassar Brothers Hospital, 207 AD2d 169, 173.

Based upon the foregoing, it is

ORDERED, that the motion by defendants Carlo Beauvoir, Dyna Louis, and Suse Edmonds pursuant to CPLR §§510(1) & 510(3) is denied. Defendants shall serve a copy of this Order on all other parties within 15 days after entry of this Order in the records of the Nassau County Clerk.

This constitutes the Order of the Court.

Dated:, 2007ENTER:

___________________________

J.S.C.