Opinion
April 1, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Upon a motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) for a change of venue based upon the convenience of witnesses, the movant must establish the identity of the witnesses who allegedly will be inconvenienced, their willingness to testify, and the nature of their anticipated testimony (see, Alexandre v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 150 A.D.2d 742, 743; Jansen v. Bernhang, 149 A.D.2d 468, 469; Greene v. Hillcrest Gen. Hosp., 130 A.D.2d 621). We note that aside from the appellants, only one other defendant, LM Specialty, Inc., joined in the application, leaving two remaining defendants who did not. There was no explanation by the movants for the failure of those defendants to do so (see, Ferrigno v General Motors Corp., 134 A.D.2d 479, 481). The movants failed to satisfy the foregoing requirements, and their motion was properly denied. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.