PEOPLE v. CRUZ

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to vacate a judgment of conviction. Not only did the defendant fail to make a showing of due diligence with respect to his claim of newly discovered evidence, but the evidence was not such that it would probably change the result in the event a new trial was granted ( see People v. Salemi, 309 NY 208, 216, cert denied 350 US 950; People v. Cabrera, 1 AD3d 375; People v. Latella, 112 AD2d 321).

Further, the defendant was provided with meaningful representation ( see People v. Benevento, 91 NY2d 708).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit ( see CPL 440.10 [c]; see also People v. Favor, 82 NY2d 254, 260-261).