The motion for a protective order was properly denied in the absence of an affidavit of the translator of the documents purporting to demonstrate that the two witnesses in question are too frail to travel to New York (CPLR 2101 [b]). We note plaintiff's representation, made for purposes of opposing a prior motion by defendant to dismiss the action on the ground of forum non conveniens, that it would make the two witnesses available for depositions in New York at its own expense ( 213 A.D.2d 275). Plaintiff's motion to renew was properly denied for failure to show that the original omission of the documents was the result of an excusable mistake or inadvertence.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Tom, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.