CONTRACTORS CAS. SURETY v. 535 BROADHOLLOW

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants' motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2), as the appellants 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 [2d Dept., July 10, 2000]; Dan's Supreme Supermarkets v. Redmont Realty Co., 261 A.D.2d 353; Corpuel v. Galasso, 240 A.D.2d 531).

We decline to consider the plaintiff's request for an award of an attorney's fee in connection with this appeal.