New York CPLR 506(B) - Interpretation
In Hecht v New York State Teachers, Retirement System (138 Misc 2d 198 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 1987), the Court held that the portion of CPLR Rule 506 (b) that allows venue "where material events otherwise took place" means that venue is not limited to the location where acts by the official, whose conduct is challenged, occurred.
The Hecht Court quoted, at 200 - 201, 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller (NY Civ Prac P 7804.03), which states:
"The second general basis for venue, 'where the material events took place,' has, however, raised several problems of interpretation. It is clear that this provision does not limit venue to the place where acts by the official whose conduct is challenged occurred. Such a limited interpretation would make the 'material events' basis of venue superfluous, since the place where the challenged action occurred is already a proper venue under the first alternative of CPLR 506 (b). Therefore, 'material events' forming a proper basis of venue include all such underlying facts and events which give rise to the official action challenged by petitioner. Thus, it has been held that a proceeding to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority could be maintained in the county where the premises involved were located, even though respondent's determination was made in a different county; and that a determination of the Department of Conservation to acquire land could be challenged in the judicial district where the land was located, since many acts preparatory to the Department's determination occurred in such district, even though the Department's ultimate determination was made in Albany County.
"Since the underlying facts and events which give rise to a challenged action can occur in more than one judicial district, it follows that each such judicial district in which a 'material event' takes place provides a proper venue as to any county therein."