SCHOEN v. CHASE MANHATTAN AUTOMOTIVE FINANCE

The vague and conclusory allegations offered in support of defendant Goldberg's cross-motion were insufficient to warrant a change of venue. We note in this regard that, among other deficiencies, defendant's submissions failed to identify a single non-party witness who has expressed any inconvenience in having to testify in New York County (compare, Lloyd v. National Propane Corp., 271 A.D.2d 202, 706 N.Y.S.2d 34). Nor did defendant indicate the home or work addresses of the various witnesses. Accordingly, Supreme Court erred in granting the cross-motion.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.