The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 were read on this motion to/for CHANGE VENUE. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Upon the foregoing documents, Defendant Heidi S. Leibowitz’s (“Defendant”) motion to change venue from New York County to Kings County is denied. I. Factual Background and Procedural History Plaintiff Joel Silverman (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action on October 7, 2022, by filing a Summons and Complaint (NYSCEF Doc. 1) against his former spouse, Defendant Heidi S. Leibowitz. The Complaint asserts causes of action for malicious prosecution (“First Cause of Action”) and abuse of process (“Second Cause of Action”) (NYSCEF Doc. 1). On December 15, 2022 Defendant filed a timely motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state claims, and, in the alternative, for improper venue (NYSCEF Doc. 2). On April 25, 2023, this Court issued an Order granting the dismissal of Plaintiff’s abuse of process claim, denying the dismissal as to the malicious prosecution claim, and denying dismissal on the basis of venue as premature and procedurally improper (NYSCEF Doc. 12). With respect to Plaintiff’s remaining claim for malicious prosecution, the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint stem from allegedly false domestic incident reports filed by Defendant against Plaintiff (NYSCEF Doc. 1) which Plaintiff claims have forestalled his NYPD career since February 2016 (NYSCEF Doc. 1 at 8). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant made false allegations to members of the NYPD Internal Affairs Board (“IAB”) and the Department Advocate’s Office, “causing the initiation of NYPD administrative proceedings against [him]” (NYSCEF Doc. 1 at 36). Plaintiff’s Complaint further alleges that Defendant played an active role in Plaintiff’s administrative prosecution by continuously providing and reiterating false allegations to members of the IAB and the Department Advocate’s Office (NYSCEF Doc. 1 at 37). Allegedly, Defendant’s “false statements led to the initiation of departmental charges by the Department Advocate’s Office” against him in New York County (NYSCEF Doc. 1 at 42; NYSCEF Doc. 13 at 9). Plaintiff alleges that due to Defendant’s malicious assertion of false charges against him, Plaintiff was forced to expend more than $15,000.00 on defense attorneys’ fees (NYSCEF Doc. 1 at 61). On May 9, 2023, Defendant sent Plaintiff a Demand to Change Venue from New York County to Kings County, alleging that New York County was an improper venue (NYSCEF Doc. 14). On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff submitted an Affidavit (NYSCEF Doc. 13) in opposition to Defendant’s demand to change venue. On May 23, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion for an Order, pursuant to CPLR §§503, 510, and 511(a) and (b), changing the venue of trial for the above-captioned action from the County of New York to the County of Kings, on the grounds that New York County is not a proper venue for this action (NYSCEF Doc. 16). In support of her motion, Defendant submitted an Affidavit (NYSCEF Doc. 20) and an Affirmation of Defendant’s counsel, Michael D. Cilento, Esq. (NYSCEF Doc. 17) on May 23, 2023. In opposition. Plaintiff filed an Affidavit (NYSCEF Doc. 22) and a Memorandum of Law (NYSCEF Doc. 28) on June 6, 2023.1 On June 12, 2023 Defendant filed a Reply Affirmation from Defendant’s counsel, Michael D. Cilento, Esq. (NYSCEF Doc. 29). II. Discussion Preliminarily, “on a motion to change venue, pursuant to CPLR 510(1), ‘defendant’s burden…is limited to establishing that the designated county is improper” IME Watchdog, Inc. v. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., 145 AD3d 464, 465 [1st Dept 2016], quoting Garced v. Clinton Arms Assoc., 58 AD3d 506, 509 [1st Dept 2009]). CPLR 503(a) provides for venue based on residence and states that “[e]xcept where otherwise prescribed by law, the place of trial shall be in the county in which one of the parties resided when [the action] was commenced; the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or if none of the parties resided in the state, in any county designated by the plaintiff.” Here, Plaintiff is a resident of Rockland County (NYSCEF Doc. 1 at 1). Defendant is a resident of Kings County (NYSCEF Doc. 20 at 2). Plaintiff commenced the instant action in New York County, alleging that “[v]enue is proper in this Court pursuant to CPLR §503(a) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in New York County” (NYSCEF Doc. 1 at p. 2). In support of his position that New York County is a proper venue, Plaintiff asserts that his claim of malicious prosecution “stems from his role as a defendant in an NYPD administrative proceeding and trial, the entirety of which took place in New York County (NYSCEF Doc. 13 at
