MARINE MIDLAND BANK v. CRAMER

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant failed to establish that the alleged newly discovered evidence, offered on his motion to vacate plaintiff's judgment against him (see, Marine Midland Bank v. Daubney Bowling Enters., 136 A.D.2d 963, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 810), could not have been discovered prior to judgment through the exercise of ordinary diligence or that the proffered evidence would, if accurate, have affected the result in the prior proceeding (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [2]). Accordingly, we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion (see, Mully v. Drayn, 51 A.D.2d 660; Wittemeyer v. Martin, 32 A.D.2d 597; see also, Matter of Commercial Structures v. City of Syracuse, 97 A.D.2d 965).

We have examined the other issues raised on appeal and find them to be without merit.