Gray v. Good

Full title: JOEL GRAY, Respondent, v. SYLVIA GOOD et al., Appellants

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 18, 1994

203 A.D.2d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

610 N.Y.S.2d 854

Opinion

April 18, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon a motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) based upon the convenience of witnesses, the movant must establish the identity of the witnesses who allegedly will be inconvenienced, their willingness to testify, and the nature of their anticipated testimony (see, Alexandre v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 150 A.D.2d 742; Greene v Hillcrest Gen. Hosp., 130 A.D.2d 621). The defendants failed to satisfy that burden. Accordingly, their motion was properly denied. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann, and Krausman, JJ., concur.