It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law with costs and the motion is denied in its entirety.
Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting that part of the motion of third-party defendant seeking a change of venue to Westchester County pursuant to CPLR 510 (3). "The party moving for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) has the burden of demonstrating that the convenience of material witnesses would be better served by the change" ( Heinemann v. Grunfeld, 224 AD2d 204, 204). Third-party defendant failed to meet that burden. It identified four nonparty witnesses, but failed to provide their residence addresses ( see Montero v. Elrac, Inc., 300 AD2d 9, 10; Stavredes v. United Skates of Am., 87 AD2d 502), establish that any of the witnesses had been contacted ( see Montero, 300 AD2d at 9-10; Carrozza v. Galleria Mall at White Plains, 292 AD2d 279) or indicate that they were available and willing to testify ( see Heinemann, 224 AD2d at 204). Further, the brief and vague descriptions of the witnesses' expected testimony are insufficient to assess the materiality of that testimony ( see People ex rel. Higgins v. Leier, 164 AD2d 492, 495; Barney v. Rochester Inst. of Tech., 105 AD2d 516). Thus, "although the facts of this case might support a change of venue if the procedural requirements were satisfied, the facial deficiency of the motion papers requires that the motion be denied" ( Montero, 300 AD2d at 10).