GLUCK v. POND HOUSE FARM, INC

The motion court properly concluded that defendants had failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating their entitlement to a discretionary change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510(3), since they submitted no statements indicating that the three nonparty witnesses in question were willing to testify at trial, and provided no reason why traveling to New York County would constitute a hardship for those witnesses (see, CPLR 510[3]; Colon v. Sears Roebuck and Co., Inc., 220 A.D.2d 280; Fernandes v. F.N. Projects, Inc., 214 A.D.2d 525).

Defendants provided no new or additional facts warranting reconsideration of the court's original decision and, accordingly, their motion for renewal was properly denied.

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