Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner's motion, designated as one for "reargument and renewal", is more properly considered a motion to vacate the judgment dismissing the CPLR article 78 petition based upon newly-discovered evidence (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [2]). Supreme Court properly denied the motion because petitioner failed to demonstrate that the newly-discovered evidence "would probably have produced a different result" (CPLR 5015 [a] [2]). Further, the evidence that petitioner relies on was a matter of public record in existence at the time of the judgment that could have been discovered in the exercise of reasonable diligence (see, Graham v. Beermunder, 93 A.D.2d 254, lv dismissed 60 N.Y.2d 630; Mully v. Drayn, 51 A.D.2d 660).