Ramos v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.Ramos v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The appellant failed to establish that two nonparty witnesses would be inconvenienced if venue was not changed to Ulster County. The general statements of the two nonparty witnesses that it would be more convenient for them to testify in the Supreme Court, Ulster County, rather than the Supreme Court, Kings County, were insufficient to warrant a change of venue, especially since the residences and places of employment of each of these witnesses were closer to the courthouse in Brooklyn than the courthouse in Kingston (see Heiss v Moose, 16 AD3d 765 [2005]; Rosario v St. John‘s Riverside Hosp., 11 AD3d 351 [2004]; Hartigan v Kurian, 224 AD2d 299 [1996]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant‘s motion pursuant to
Contrary to the appellant‘s contention, the Supreme Court did not deny his request for relief pursuant to