DECISION AND TRANSFER ORDER Preliminary Statement The instant motion to change venue presents the apparently-novel question: What is the appropriate venue in a challenge to an independent designating/nominating petition in an Election Law case where the candidates seek to run on a Statewide general election ballot for the positions of President and Vice President of the United States and the objectors/petitioners in the proceeding have alleged that the nominating petition is permeated with fraud? The Election Law provides no clear answer1 nor does the CPLR. After extensive review and consideration — and with acute awareness of the speed with which Election Law cases must be determined — this Court finds that venue is improper in Dutchess County and is proper in Albany County for the reasons which follow. The following papers were read and considered in determining the motion: NYSCEF document numbers 12, 17, 40-51, 56, 60 and all other NYSCEF documents referenced therein. Relevant Factual and Procedural Background This is a special proceeding pursuant to Election Law §§6-154 and 16-102 seeking to declare null, void, and invalid (etc.) the Independent Nominating Petition of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as candidate for President of the United States and Nicole Shanahan as candidate for Vice President of the United States2 on the “We the People” Independent Body party-line3 of the Statewide ballots in the November 2024 general election (hereinafter “the nominating petition”). This proceeding also seeks to direct the New York State Board of Elections not to place Mr. Kennedy and Ms. Shanahan on the official ballots for the general election to be held in November 2024, to declare the nominating petition a legal nullity and to reverse any contrary determination that may be made by the New York State Board of Elections. This proceeding was commenced by the filing of a verified petition, supporting exhibits and proposed order to show cause on June 10, 2024. The order to show cause was signed on June 10, 2024 and directed the manner of service on all of the respondents. The petition names Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Nicole Shanahan and their alleged electors as the “respondents-candidates” (hereinafter “respondents-candidates”). It names “Henry T. Berger, Peter S. Kosinski, Essma Bagnuola and Anthony J. Casale, Commissioners constituting the New York State Board of Elections” (hereinafter “NYSBOE”) as “respondents”. The petition alleges, inter alia, that the petitioners are all duly qualified voters in New York State who have filed timely, written objections with NYSBOE at its office in Albany with respect to the nominating petition. It is alleged that the written objections which form the basis for this proceeding include that the nominating petition is insufficient, ineffective, false, fraudulent and invalid for a litany of reasons. The bulk of those reasons pertain to problems with the signatures offered to support the nominating petition4, including but not limited to, fraudulent signatures, lack of or improper notarization of signatures, fraudulent dates, fraud and deceit in collecting the signatures and much more. There is also an allegation that respondent-candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. represented himself on the nominating petition as being a resident of New York State and that such representation is false and fraudulent because Mr. Kennedy is a resident of California. It is alleged that the New York address listed by Mr. Kennedy on the nominating petition as his residence is a residence belonging to his friend and that he has never resided there nor demonstrated an intent to reside there. This allegation is particularly important. It is alleged that Mr. Kennedy is in fact a resident of the State of California, and as Ms. Shanahan is a resident of California, if Mr. Kennedy is as well, the US Constitution would prohibit electors in that state from voting for both of them (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 3; and Twelfth Amendment). On June 12, 2024, the respondents-candidates filed a written demand to change the place of trial from Dutchess County to Albany County. The basis for the asserted change is that Dutchess is an improper venue and Albany is the proper venue pursuant to CPLR §506(b) and 22 NYCRR §202.64(a). In a court appearance held on June 14, 2024, the respondents-candidates’ attorney stated their intention to make a motion to change venue to Albany County and that such motion would be submitted on or before June 18, 2024, which was the return date of the order to show cause on the underlying petition. Counsel for NYSBOE stated that NYSBOE took no position as to venue. On June 17, 2024 at 8:03pm, counsel for the petitioners filed an affidavit in response to the demand to change venue pursuant to CPLR §511(b). The affidavit asserts, inter alia, that venue is proper in Dutchess pursuant to CPLR 503(a) because one of the petitioners resides in Dutchess County and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to petitioners’ claims occurred in Dutchess County — to wit, the representation that Kennedy is a New York resident “affected” all New Yorkers, including residents of Dutchess County, and the signature-gathering process occurred all across New York State including Dutchess County. The Affidavit asserts that venue is also proper under CPLR 506(b) because material events occurred in Dutchess County, those being the same events as stated to support venue under CPLR 503(a). The instant motion was submitted, by proposed order to show cause and supporting papers, on June 19, 2024. The order to show cause was signed on June 20, 2024. The Parties’ Contentions The motion asserts that because this is a special proceeding against, among others, NYSBOE, it is “a proceeding against a body or officer” under CPLR 506(b) and that venue must be placed in a county which meets one or more of the criteria specified in that statute. Further, the motion asserts that because this is a special proceeding pursuant to the Election Law, 22 NYCRR §202.64 requires that it be venued in the county in which it arose. The respondents-candidates argue that under both the statute and the court rule, Dutchess is an improper venue and Albany is the proper venue based on the following: Albany County is the location where NYSBOE will make the “determination complained of” (CPLR §506(b)) Albany County is where relevant proceedings of NYSBOE have or will take place. (CPLR §506(b)) Albany County is where “the material events” took place or will take place (CPLR §506(b)) Albany County is where NYSBOE’s principal office is located (CPLR §506(b)) The proceedings “arose” in Albany County, where the nominating petition was filed and where NYSBOE will make its determination (22 NYCRR §202.64) The primary factual predicates cited by the respondents-candidates for the foregoing assertions are that “the principal underlying conduct at issue in the instant proceeding, is the validation of the nominating petition, which only Respondent NYSBOE can accomplish, and which Petitioners-Objectors seek to prevent” and that “the material events are the validation or threatened validation of the subject nominating petition by Respondent NYSBOE”. The respondents-candidates also argue that Albany County is centrally located and easily accessible, especially for six of the respondents-candidates who reside north or east of Albany, suggesting that Albany is a more convenient forum. The petitioners argue that venue is proper under CPLR 503(a) because one of the petitioners-objectors resided in Dutchess County when the proceeding was commenced5, and because substantial parts of the events or omissions giving rise to the petitioners’ claims took place in Dutchess6. The factual predicates cited by petitioners for these assertions are that petitioner, Joseph Rhone, resided in Dutchess County when the proceeding was commenced, and that: “The Independent Nominating Petition’s deliberate falsehood concerning Respondent-Candidate Robert F. Kennedy’s residence — the primary ground on which Petitioners-Objectors seek to invalidate the Petition — affected all New York residents and eligible voters, including those that reside in County of Dutchess [and]…on information and belief, the signature collection efforts supporting the Nominating Petition to place Respondent-Candidate Kennedy on the Presidential Ballot likewise occurred across the State, including the? County of Dutchess.” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 56, pg. 2, citing NYSCEF Doc. No. 17,
