Opinion
2000-10437
Submitted June 17, 2002
August 19, 2002.
In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated October 11, 2000, which denied his motion to vacate an order of filiation of the same court (Salinitro, J.), dated February 18, 1998, entered on his consent.
Pollak Slepian, P.C., Bayside, N.Y. (Martin A. Pollak of counsel), for appellant.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, SANDRA L. TOWNES, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to vacate the order of filiation on the ground of newly-discovered evidence (see CPLR 5015[a][2]; Vandelli v. Vandelli, 266 A.D.2d 280). The appellant failed to show that the alleged newly-discovered evidence could not have been discovered with due diligence before he admitted to paternity of the subject child (see Zaccaria v. Russell, 288 A.D.2d 468; Litras v. Latras, 271 A.D.2d 578).
The appellant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.