Ordered that the order is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he is entitled to vacatur of his conviction, or to a hearing, based on the affidavit of the prosecution's main witness, who has now recanted his trial testimony. It is well settled that "[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony" (People v Shilitano, 218 N.Y. 161, 170). Under the circumstances of this case the court correctly found that the witness's recantation was incredible (see, People v Rodriguez, 201 A.D.2d 683; People v Donald, 107 A.D.2d 818). The witness's recantation, which merely impeaches his prior testimony, probably would not change the result if a new trial were granted (see, People v Salemi, 309 N.Y. 208, 215-216, cert denied 350 U.S. 950; People v Lavrick, 146 A.D.2d 648, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 979, cert denied 493 U.S. 1029), and therefore the court properly denied the defendant's motion without a hearing. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.