Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
We find that the court properly denied, without a hearing, the defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 (3) to set aside his conviction under indictment No. 64271 based on newly discovered evidence. The defendant failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence (see, CPL 330.40 [g]), inter alia, that the newly discovered evidence could not have been produced by the defense at the trial with due diligence (see, People v Priori, 164 N.Y. 459; People v Penoyer, 135 A.D.2d 42, affd 72 N.Y.2d 936, on opn of Yesawich, J., at App. Div.; People v Rivera, 108 A.D.2d 829). The only reason set forth as to why the purported newly discovered witness could not have testified at the trial was that he did not come forward with the information until more than 11 months after the defendant's arrest and about 3 months after the trial. It appears, however, that the witness had known the defendant for over 10 years and was friendly with the sister and housemate of the defendant's girlfriend. We find that the motion papers did not allege sufficient facts to show that the evidence could not have been discovered with due diligence by the defense. It was, therefore, proper to deny the motion without a hearing (see, People v Brown, 79 A.D.2d 659, affd 56 N.Y.2d 242; People v Malave, 104 A.D.2d 828).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including the propriety of the sentences under both indictments Nos. 64271 and 60966, and find them to be either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.