Opinion
December 3, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.
Upon a motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) based upon convenience of the 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. Absent such a showing, such a motion should be denied (see, Alexandre v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 150 A.D.2d 742; Ferrigno v. General Motors Corp., 134 A.D.2d 479; Greene v. Hillcrest Gen. Hosp., 130 A.D.2d 621; Brevetti v. Roth, 114 A.D.2d 877; Williamsburg Steel Prods. Co. v. Shelving-Manning, Inc., 90 A.D.2d 550). The defendants failed to satisfy this burden and, accordingly, the granting of the motion was improper. Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.