Opinion
February 27, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Chemung County (Swartwood, J.).
The arguments raised by plaintiffs in their pro se brief in support of the motion to vacate the judgment are essentially "newly-discovered evidence" (CPLR 5015 [a] [2]) arguments. Such evidence, however, must be material and likely to change the result if a new trial is granted and a court's determination in this regard will be overturned only if there was an abuse of discretion (see, Agarwal v. Quail Homes, 120 A.D.2d 694; Suffolk Cement Prods. v. State of New York, 54 A.D.2d 804). Here, plaintiffs raise issues previously decided by Supreme Court and raised on two appeals to this court (see, 154 A.D.2d 791, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 701; 149 A.D.2d 862). Plaintiffs' additional arguments are conclusory and no information has been provided that is material or likely to change the result if the case were retried. Supreme Court therefore properly denied the motion to vacate. Plaintiffs' remaining contentions in support of the motion have likewise been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.
Levine, J.P., Mercure, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.