Judgment affirmed.
The trial court's Sandoval ruling was not erroneous (see, People v. Hendrix, 44 N.Y.2d 658, 659; People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, 264, cert denied 423 U.S. 861; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). Sufficient evidence supported the conviction of the defendant (see, Penal Law § 150.20, 145.12 Penal; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), since the jury could infer from the testimony that a bottle filled with a volatile flammable oil was lit and thrown by the defendant through the window of the apartment of the sister of the defendant's former girlfriend. The defendant's other contention of trial error lacks merit.
The defendant's motion for a new trial was properly denied. He did not prove by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that the new evidence could not have been produced at the trial with due diligence and that there was a probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to him in light of the new evidence (see, CPL 330.30; People v. Santiago, 88 A.D.2d 665). We agree with the trial court's conclusion that the defendant's evidence could have been discovered with due diligence and that his witnesses did not merit belief. Lazer, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.