ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2), as the plaintiff failed to show that the alleged newly-discovered evidence could not have been discovered with due diligence before entry of the judgment (see, Orix Credit Alliance v. Grace Indus., 274 A.D.2d 424; Dan's Supreme Supermarkets v. Redmont Realty Co., 261 A.D.2d 353). The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the motion which was to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3), as the plaintiff failed to show that it had been procured by fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct (see, Caiola v. Allcity Ins. Co., 257 A.D.2d 586).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.