CUMBERBATCH v. GATEHOUSE MOTEL AND RESTAURANT

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion to change the venue of this action to Steuben County. The convenience of the individual defendants and their son is excluded from consideration in determining the motion ( see, O'Brien v. Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 A.D.2d 169, 173; Schapiro Reich v. Fuchsberg, 172 A.D.2d 1080; Lundgren v. Lovejoy, Wasson, Lundgren Ashton, 82 A.D.2d 912). With respect to the remaining nonparty witnesses, the defendants failed to either disclose, inter alia, the nature and materiality of their anticipated testimony or establish that they would be inconvenienced in the event that a change of venue was not granted ( see, Weisemann v. Davison, 162 A.D.2d 448).

S. MILLER, J.P., THOMPSON, KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.