Farookh Firoozan v. Key Food Supermarket Et Al‪.‬

[151 A.D.2d 334 Page 334] Defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) for a change of venue from The Bronx to Queens County. In support of their application,
defendants urged that Queens County is the proper place for the trial of this matter since the accident in question occurred
in Queens County, plaintiff resides in Queens County, medical treatment was rendered to plaintiff in Queens County, court
calendars are purportedly less congested in Queens County than they are in The Bronx, and most of the witnesses necessary
to this case either reside or work in Queens County. In that regard, it was argued that the only connection between the instant
lawsuit and Bronx County is the maintenance of principal offices there by several of the co-defendants. However, while the
general rule that a transitory action should be brought where that action accrued is, all other things being equal, a significant
factor in determining venue, a motion under CPLR 510 (3) must be supported by a statement specifying the witnesses involved,
the nature of their testimony and how they would be inconvenienced by having to testify in the original situs (Rosa v Shavelson,
149 A.D.2d 371; Morales v Muccio, 145 A.D.2d 340; Green v Shortts, 145 A.D.2d 340; Torriero v Austin Truck Rental, 143 A.D.2d
595; Greene v Hillcrest Gen. Hosp., 130 A.D.2d 621). Since venue in The Bronx was not improper and, contrary to the situation
in Thomas v Small (121 A.D.2d 622), wherein the court found that [151 A.D.2d 334 Page 335]