Order affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Special Term properly exercised its discretion in granting the respondents' respective motions and cross motion for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens pursuant to CPLR 327 (a). The respondents have met their burden of proof of establishing that New York is not a convenient forum (see, Bader Bader v Ford, 66 A.D.2d 642, appeal dismissed 48 N.Y.2d 649). To support their factual allegations, the respondents have demonstrated that a substantial majority of the witnesses and the documentary evidence is located in the Canadian Province of Quebec (see, Bewers v American Home Prods. Corp., 99 A.D.2d 949, affd 64 N.Y.2d 630). Therefore, despite the fact that the respondents are residents of New York, the convenience of the parties warrants the adjudication of the instant litigation in Quebec (see, Silver v Great Am. Ins. Co., 29 N.Y.2d 356). Bracken, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.