Under CPLR 510 (3), courts have discretion to grant venue changes when "the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted." To establish a right to change venue on this ground, the movant must submit affidavits that "(1) contain the names, addresses, and occupations of witnesses expected to be called; (2) disclose the facts upon which such witnesses are expected to testify, in order that the court may determine whether such witnesses are material and necessary; (3) demonstrate that such witnesses are willing to testify; and (4) show that the witnesses would be inconvenienced absent a change in venue" (O'Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 A.D.2d 169 [2d Dept 1995]; see also 10 Two Trees Lane LLC v Mahoney, 192 A.D.3d 468 [1st Dept 2021]).

Plaintiff properly placed venue in Bronx County, the County where she resides ( CPLR 503[b] ). Accordingly, a discretionary change of venue based on the convenience of witnesses will be granted only after there has been a detailed evidentiary showing that the convenience of nonparty witnesses would be served by the granting of such relief ( 10 Two Trees Lane LLC v. Mahoney, 192 A.D.3d 468, 469, 139 N.Y.S.3d 819 [1st Dept. 2021] ). Defendant failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that a change of venue for the convenience of material witnesses was warranted. Defendant submitted affidavits of three law enforcement officers employed by Warren County who were involved in the search of plaintiff's decedent and the recovery of the snowmobile after the accident, and an Emergency Medical Technician employed by the Town of Lake George who rode in the ambulance with the decedent after the accident.

In support of its application for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR § 510(3), defendant argues that this case has no nexus to the Bronx, and that Brooklyn is the situs of the building and events, and where most of the material witnesses live or work. As noted, plaintiff based his choice of Bronx venue on his place of residence, which is his right (see Summons and Complaint; CPLR § 503[a]). Because defendant has not made the requisite evidentiary showing that the non-party witnesses will be inconvenienced absent a change in venue, the motion to change venue is denied (10 Two Trees Lane LLC v Mahoney, 192 A.D.3d 468, 469 [1st Dept 2021]; Tawiah v McNiff, 193 A.D.3d 559, 560 [1st Dept 2021]; Sanchez v 1 Burgess Rd., LLC, 169 A.D.3d 605 [1st Dept 2019]; cf. Gentry v Finnigan, 110 A.D.3d 568, 569 [1st Dept 2013]). Accordingly, it is

Without these affidavits or other proofs from material witnesses, Defendants fail to maintain their burden of showing entitlement to a discretionary change of venue (Twaiah v McNiff, 193 A.D.3d 559 [1st Dept 2021]; 10 Two Trees Lane LLC v Mahoney, 192 A.D.3d 468 [1st Dept 2021]; Manzariv Burrows, 89 A.D.3d 440 [1st Dept 2011]). In particular, Authentic was required to provide an affidavit with (1) the names, addresses, and occupations of witnesses expected to be called; (2) disclose the facts upon which such witnesses are expected to testify, in order that the court may determine whether such witnesses are material and necessary; (3) demonstrate that such witnesses are willing to testify; and (4) show that the witnesses would be inconvenienced absent a change in venue (10 Two Trees, supra at 469).

It should be noted that defendant did not meet his burden for a discretionary transfer of venue pursuant to CPLR § 510(3). "[A] defendant seeking a change of venue under CPLR 510(3) must make a detailed evidentiary showing that the nonparty witnesses will, in fact, be inconvenienced absent such relief" (10 Two Trees Lane LLC v Mahoney, 192 A.D.3d 468, 469 [1st Dept 2021]). "The affidavit of the moving party under CPLR 510(3) must (1) contain the names, addresses, and occupations of witnesses expected to be called; (2) disclose the facts upon which such witnesses are expected to testify, in order that the court may determine whether such witnesses are material and necessary; (3) demonstrate that such witnesses are willing to testify; and (4) show that the witnesses would be inconvenienced absent a change in venue" (id.).

To meet this burden, Defendants must provide: (1) the identity of the material nonparty witnesses, (2) the manner in which they will be inconvenienced by a trial in New York County, (3) that the witnesses have been contacted and are available and willing to testify for Defendants, (4) the nature of the anticipated testimony, and (5) the manner in which the anticipated testimony is material to the issues raised in the case. See Cardona v. Aggressive Heating, 180 A.D.2d 572 (1st Dep't 1992); see also 10 Two Trees Lane LLC v. Mahoney, 192 A.D.3d 468 (1st Dep't 2021) (applying the Cardona test). Defendants do not even begin to make the required showing.

These general, conclusory statements, made only in affirmations of counsel, are plainly insufficient. (See 10 Two Trees Lane LLC v Mahoney, 192 A.D.3d 468, 469 [1st Dept 2021] [explaining that a defendant moving under CPLR 510 (3) for change of venue "must make a detailed evidentiary showing" by affidavit that witnesses "will, in fact, be inconvenienced absent such relief," and describing the multiple elements of the necessary showing].)

(10 Two Trees Lane LLC v Mahoney, 192 A.D.3d 468, 469 [1st Dept 2021]).