DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2) to modify the judgment of divorce on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. The plaintiff failed to establish that the evidence was not available at the time of the prejudgment proceedings, or that it would likely have produced a different result regarding the equitable disposition of the marital residence ( see Gonzalez v. Chalpin, 233 A.D.2d 367; Bertan v. Richmond Mem. Hosp. and Health Ctr., 131 A.D.2d 799, 801; Agarwal v. Quail Homes of Long Is., 120 A.D.2d 694, 695). Since the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the motion which was to modify the judgment, it therefore also correctly declined to transfer ownership of the marital residence solely to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., SMITH, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.