Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The mother was not entitled to vacatur of the prior order of support on the grounds of newly-discovered evidence and fraud and misrepresentation by the father where, as here, the record supports the conclusion that the mother was aware of the evidence before the entry of the prior order ( see, e.g., McGovern v. Getz, 193 A.D.2d 655, 657; see also, Summer v. Summer, 233 A.D.2d 881; Elmore v. Elmore, 208 A.D.2d 1134, 1135; Enright v. Vasile, 205 A.D.2d 732, 733). Moreover, the allegedly newly discovered evidence would not likely have resulted in a different child support order ( see, CPLR 5015 [a] [2]).
O'Brien, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.