Ordered that the order dated February 9, 2009, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) to vacate its order dated September 22, 2008. The plaintiff failed to establish that the allegedly newly-discovered evidence he submitted in support of his motion probably would have produced a different result ( see Sicurelli v Sicurelli, 73 AD3d 735; Jonas v Jonas, 4 AD3d 336). Likewise, because the plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden of establishing the existence of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct on the part of the defendant, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his motion which, in effect, sought vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) ( see Sicurelli v Sicurelli, 73 AD3d at 735; Badgett v Badgett, 2 AD3d 379).