Opinion
2002-02052
Argued February 11, 2003.
March 3, 2003.
In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated December 6, 2001, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2) to vacate an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, dated June 1, 2001, which, upon granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, was in favor of the plaintiff.
Murphy O'Connell, New York, N.Y. (Kathleen O'Connell of counsel), for appellant.
Ginsburg Misk, Queens Village, N.Y. (Hal R. Ginsburg of counsel), for respondent.
Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In this action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to vacate the order and judgment on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, since the allegedly newly-discovered evidence could have been discovered earlier with due diligence (see Feldstein v. Rounick, 295 A.D.2d 398; Orix Credit Alliance v. Grace Indus., 274 A.D.2d 424; Dan's Supreme Supermarkets v. Redmont Realty Co., 261 A.D.2d 353). In any event, the allegedly newly-discovered evidence was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851; Gonzalez v. Chalpin, 233 A.D.2d 367; Lanstar Intl. Realty v. New York News, 206 A.D.2d 411).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
PRUDENTI, P.J., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.