The change of venue to Westchester County was a proper exercise of discretion once the co-plaintiff, whose residence was the basis for placing venue in Bronx County, settled her claims against defendants, given that Westchester is the residence of the sole remaining plaintiff and the action has no other connections to Bronx County (cf., Tamburro v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., 234 A.D.2d 535; Matter of Schulz b New York State Legislature, 252 A.D.2d 717, 718; cf. also, Emerick v. Metropolitan Transp Auth., 272 A.D.2d 150, 708 N.Y.S.2d 612; Halina Yin Fong Chow v. Long Is. R. R., 202 A.D.2d 154).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.