25/27 Corp. v. Mormile25/27 Corp. v. Mormile
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants’ motion pursuant to
Nonetheless, the defendants’ motion to change venue was properly denied. The convenience of the son of the defendant Andrea Mormile must be excluded from consideration in determining the motion (see Cumberbatch v Gatehouse Motel & Rest., 265 AD2d 370 [1999]; O‘Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169, 173 [1995]; cf. Lundgren v Lovejoy, Wasson, Lundgren & Ashton, 82 AD2d 912 [1981]). Furthermore, the affidavits of Robert Rampulla and Al Risi were insufficient to establish that the defendants were entitled to a change of venue pursuant to