The requested change of venue was properly denied in the absence of a statement that the witnesses whose convenience defendants espouse were contacted, and indicating the manner in which they would be inconvenienced (see, Soufan v. Argo Pneumatic Co., 170 A.D.2d 289, 290; Molod v. Amundsen, 194 A.D.2d 429). There is no presumption that a witness will be inconvenienced merely because the courthouse is located in a county other than where the witness lives or works (Pittman v. Maher, 202 A.D.2d 172, 177).
We note that the motion was properly entertained on the merits since it was made while there was still outstanding discovery and its timing did not otherwise prejudice plaintiff (see, Soufan v. Argo Pneumatic Co., supra, at 291).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.