Further, "[m]ere doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or a preponderance of conflicting evidence as to the defendant's guilt, is insufficient, since a convicted defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and in fact is presumed to be guilty" ( People v. Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 27, 979 N.Y.S.2d 97 ). "A prima facie showing of actual innocence is made out when there is ‘a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration’ " ( id., quoting Goldblum v. Klem, 510 F.3d 204, 219 [3d Cir.] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Upon a prima facie showing, a hearing should be conducted on a defendant's claim of actual innocence (seePeople v. Griffin, 120 A.D.3d 1257, 991 N.Y.S.2d 896 ; People v. Jones, 115 A.D.3d 984, 986, 982 N.Y.S.2d 770 ; People v. Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 27, 979 N.Y.S.2d 97 ). Here, the defendant made a prima facie showing based upon the five affidavits from the alleged witnesses that he submitted and Colon's recantation of her trial testimony (seePeople v. Jones, 115 A.D.3d at 986, 982 N.Y.S.2d 770 ; People v. Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 27, 979 N.Y.S.2d 97 ).

"A prima facie showing of actual innocence is made out when there is 'a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration'" (id., quoting Goldblum v Klem, 510 F.3d 204, 219 [3d Cir] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Upon a prima facie showing, a hearing should be conducted on a defendant's claim of actual innocence (see People v Griffin, 120 A.D.3d 1257; People v Jones, 115 A.D.3d 984, 986; People v Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 27). Here, the defendant made a prima facie showing based upon the five affidavits from the alleged witnesses that he submitted and Colon's recantation of her trial testimony (see People v Jones, 115 A.D.3d at 986; People v Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 27).

The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in summarily denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(h) to vacate his conviction based on actual innocence. “ ‘[A]ctual innocence’ means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency of evidence of guilt, and must be based upon reliable evidence which was not presented at the trial” (People v. Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d 12, 23, 979 N.Y.S.2d 97 [citation omitted]; see Bousley v. U.S., 523 U.S. 614, 623–624, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828). “A prima facie showing of actual innocence is made out when there is ‘a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration’ by the court” (People v. Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 27, 979 N.Y.S.2d 97, quoting Goldblum v. Klem, 510 F.3d 204, 219; see People v. Caldavado, 116 A.D.3d 877, 983 N.Y.S.2d 410; People v. Jones, 115 A.D.3d 984, 982 N.Y.S.2d 770). If the defendant meets this prima facie burden, a hearing on the claim is conducted ( see People v. Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 27, 979 N.Y.S.2d 97). Here, the defendant failed to make the requisite prima facie showing, and, thus, no hearing was warranted ( see People v. Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 28, 979 N.Y.S.2d 97; People v. Caldavado, 116 A.D.3d at 877, 983 N.Y.S.2d 410; People v. Jones, 115 A.D.3d at 984, 982 N.Y.S.2d 770). RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, SGROI and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.

"A prima facie showing of actual innocence is made out when there is 'a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration'" (id., quoting Goldblum v Klem, 510 F.3d 204, 219 [3d Cir] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Upon a prima facie showing, a hearing should be conducted on a defendant's claim of actual innocence (see People v Griffin, 120 A.D.3d 1257; People v Jones, 115 A.D.3d 984, 986; People v Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 27). Here, the defendant made a prima facie showing based upon the five affidavits from the alleged witnesses that he submitted and Colon's recantation of her trial testimony (see People v Jones, 115 A.D.3d at 986; People v Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 27).

"A prima facie showing of actual innocence is made out when there is 'a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration'" (id., quoting Goldblum v Klem, 510 F.3d 204, 219 [3d Cir] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Upon a prima facie showing, a hearing should be conducted on a defendant's claim of actual innocence (see People v Griffin, 120 A.D.3d 1257; People v Jones, 115 A.D.3d 984, 986; People v Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 27).

"'[A]ctual innocence' means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency of evidence of guilt, and must be based upon reliable evidence which was not presented at the trial" (People v Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d 12, 23 [citation omitted]; see Bousley v United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623-624). "A prima facie showing of actual innocence is made out when there is 'a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration' by the court" (People v Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 27, quoting Goldblum v Klem, 510 F.3d 204, 219 [3d Cir]; see People v Jones, 115 A.D.3d 984). If the defendant meets this prima facie burden, a hearing on the claim is conducted (see People v Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 27).

"'[A]ctual innocence' means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency of evidence of guilt, and must be based upon reliable evidence which was not presented at the trial" (People v Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d 12, 23 [citation omitted]; see Bousley v United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623-624). "A prima facie showing of actual innocence is made out when there is 'a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration' by the court" (People v Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 27, quoting Goldblum v Klem, 510 F.3d 204, 219 [3d Cir]; see People v Jones, 115 A.D.3d 984). If the defendant meets this prima facie burden, a hearing on the claim is conducted (see People v Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 27).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in summarily denying that branch of the defendant's renewed motion which was pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his judgment of conviction based on actual innocence. " ‘[A]ctual innocence’ means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency of evidence of guilt, and must be based upon reliable evidence which was not presented at the trial" ( People v. Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d 12, 23, 979 N.Y.S.2d 97 [citation omitted]; seeBousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623–624, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 ). "A prima facie showing of actual innocence is made out when there is ‘a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration’ by the court" ( People v. Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 27, 979 N.Y.S.2d 97, quoting Goldblum v. Klem, 510 F.3d 204, 219 [3d Cir.] ; seePeople v. Jones, 115 A.D.3d 984, 982 N.Y.S.2d 770 ). If the defendant meets this prima facie burden, a hearing on the claim is conducted (seePeople v. Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 27, 979 N.Y.S.2d 97 ).

Counsel was not ineffective for failing to request an in camera review of the DD–5 reports, as mere belated disclosure of certain Brady material and the number of DD–5 reports not disclosed, without more, provided an insufficient factual basis for arguing that the prosecutor had improperly denied the existence of Brady material in the reports (seePeople v. Rodriguez, 181 A.D.2d 841, 842, 581 N.Y.S.2d 396 ; see alsoPeople v. Contreras, 12 N.Y.3d 268, 272, 879 N.Y.S.2d 369, 907 N.E.2d 282 ; cf.People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144, 149, 422 N.Y.S.2d 5, 397 N.E.2d 697 ; People v. Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, 453, 387 N.Y.S.2d 62, 354 N.E.2d 801 ). Similarly, the defendant failed to demonstrate that his judgment of conviction should be vacated based on an alleged Brady violation in failing to disclose the DD–5 reports, or that he was entitled to a hearing on that issue (seePeople v. Jones, 115 A.D.3d 984, 986, 982 N.Y.S.2d 770 ). BALKIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, MILLER and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.

"A prima facie showing of actual innocence is made out when there is " ‘a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration’ " by the court" (People v. Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 27, 979 N.Y.S.2d 97, quoting Goldblum v. Klem, 510 F.3d 204, 219 [3d Cir.], quoting Bennett v. United States, 119 F.3d 468, 469 [7th Cir.] ). Here, by submitting her affidavit, Farber's affirmation, and other material, such as the skin biopsy pathology report, the defendant made the requisite prima facie showing (see People v. Jones, 115 A.D.3d 984, 986, 982 N.Y.S.2d 770 [the defendant made the requisite prima facie showing by submitting affidavits from alibi witnesses who, although they had been identified before trial in a notice of alibi, had not testified at trial]; People v. Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d at 27, 979 N.Y.S.2d 97 [the defendant made a prima facie showing based on evidence of a credible alibi and manipulation of the witnesses, and the fact that the witness against him had recanted] ). We also note that subsequent to the entry of the defendant's plea of guilty, the civil action against the defendant and her former employer resulted in a jury verdict in their favor.