ndant first contends that she is entitled to vacatur of the judgment of conviction, or in the alternative a hearing, based upon newly discovered evidence – specifically, evidence that victim B recanted her testimony following the trial. To prevail on such a claim, a defendant bears the burden of establishing that the evidence meets "the following requirements: (1) it must be such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) it must have been discovered since the trial; (3) it must be such as could have not been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) it must be material to the issue; (5) it must not be cumulative to the former issue; and[ ] (6) it must not be merely impeaching or contradicting the former evidence" ( People v. Hartle, 192 A.D.3d 1199, 1202, 142 N.Y.S.3d 660 [3d Dept. 2021] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv granted 37 N.Y.3d 1027, 153 N.Y.S.3d 422, 175 N.E.3d 448 [2021] ; see CPL 440.10[1][g] ); People v. Stetin, 192 A.D.3d 1331, 1333, 143 N.Y.S.3d 460 [3d Dept. 2021] ). In support of her motion, defendant submitted affidavits from six witnesses, each of whom stated that victim B recanted her trial testimony.

However, while the victim's affidavit provides certain information that could be characterized as clarification as to the cause of the injuries to her nose and finger, the statements in her affidavit that are dispositive to this appeal clearly seek to recant her testimony concerning the severity of the injuries to her neck. In the context of recantation evidence, which "is inherently unreliable" ( People v. Stanton, 200 A.D.3d 1307, 1312, 158 N.Y.S.3d 416 [3d Dept. 2021] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv. denied 38 N.Y.3d 954, 165 N.Y.S.3d 444, 185 N.E.3d 965 [2022] ), "the defendant bears the burden of rebutting the presumption of regularity that attached to the prior judicial proceeding by producing substantial evidence that the recanting witness's prior testimony was false" ( People v. Stetin, 192 A.D.3d 1331, 1333, 143 N.Y.S.3d 460 [3d Dept. 2021] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; seePeople v. Williams, 11 A.D.3d 810, 812, 784 N.Y.S.2d 185 [3d Dept. 2004], lv denied 4 N.Y.3d 769, 792 N.Y.S.2d 13, 825 N.E.2d 145 [2005] ). "Thus, in assessing the credibility of recantation testimony, courts consider a variety of factors, including ‘(1) the inherent believability of the substance of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness's demeanor both at trial and at the evidentiary hearing; (3) the existence of evidence corroborating the trial testimony; (4) the reasons offered for both the trial testimony and the recantation; (5) the importance of facts established at trial as reaffirmed in the recantation; and (6) the relationship between the witness and [the] defendant as related to a motive to lie’ " ( People v. Nelson, 171 A.D.3d at 1253, 97 N.Y.S.3d 779 [citations omitted], quoting People v. Wong, 11 A.D.3d 724, 725–726, 784 N.Y.S.2d 158 [3d Dept. 2004] ).

, including where "[t]he judgment was procured by duress, misrepresentation or fraud on the part of ... a person acting for ... a prosecutor" ( CPL 440.10[1][b] ; seePeople v. Wagstaffe, 120 A.D.3d 1361, 1362, 992 N.Y.S.2d 340 [2014], lvs denied 25 N.Y.3d 1161, 1173, 15 N.Y.S.3d 294, 304, 36 N.E.3d 97, 107 [2015]), "[m]aterial evidence adduced at a trial resulting in the judgment was false and was, prior to the entry of the judgment, known by the prosecutor or by the court to be false" ( CPL 440.10[1][c] ), "[t]he judgment was obtained in violation of a right of the defendant under the constitution of this state or of the United States" ( CPL 440.10[1][h] ), or "[n]ew evidence has been discovered since the entry of a judgment based upon a verdict of guilty after trial, which could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with due diligence on his [or her] part" ( CPL 440.10[1][g] ; seePeople v. Thibodeau, 31 N.Y.3d 1155, 1157, 81 N.Y.S.3d 785, 106 N.E.3d 1145 [2018] ; People v. Stetin, 192 A.D.3d 1331, 1333, 143 N.Y.S.3d 460 [2021] ; People v. Werkheiser, 171 A.D.3d 1297, 1303–1304, 98 N.Y.S.3d 345 [2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1109, 106 N.Y.S.3d 661, 130 N.E.3d 1271 [2019] ). As part of the motion papers, defendant submitted affidavits from each of his parents, signed in July 2019, averring that the contents of their November 2016 statements to the police were false and were written by police officers who threatened them with jail time for lying, and that they were forced to sign those statements before the mother was permitted to be transported to the hospital for medical care. The parents had each signed an affidavit in September 2017 that contained similar information.

uding where "[t]he judgment was procured by duress, misrepresentation or fraud on the part of... a person acting for... a prosecutor" (CPL 440.10 [1] [b]; see People v Wagstaffe, 120 A.D.3d 1361, 1362 [2014], lvs denied 25 N.Y.3d 1161, 1173 [2015]), "[m]aterial evidence adduced at a trial resulting in the judgment was false and was, prior to the entry of the judgment, known by the prosecutor or by the court to be false" (CPL 440.10 [1] [c]), "[t]he judgment was obtained in violation of a right of the defendant under the constitution of this state or of the United States" (CPL 440.10 [1] [h]), or "[n]ew evidence has been discovered since the entry of a judgment based upon a verdict of guilty after trial, which could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with due diligence on his [or her] part" (CPL 440.10 [1] [g]; see People v Thibodeau, 31 N.Y.3d 1155, 1157 [2018]; People v Stetin, 192 A.D.3d 1331, 1333 [2021]; People v Werkheiser, 171 A.D.3d 1297, 1303-1304 [2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1109 [2019]). As part of the motion papers, defendant submitted affidavits from each of his parents, signed in July 2019, averring that the contents of their November 2016 statements to the police were false and were written by police officers who threatened them with jail time for lying, and that they were forced to sign those statements before the mother was permitted to be transported to the hospital for medical care. The parents had each signed an affidavit in September 2017 that contained similar information.

Defendant also contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate an alleged recantation by the victim. In support of his motion, however, which is based upon information outside the record, defendant did not proffer any sworn allegations substantiating his claim and, instead, proffered only his own affidavit, which merely "recit[es] the chronology of his case" ( People v. Kennedy, 46 A.D.3d 1099, 1101, 847 N.Y.S.2d 736 [2007], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 841, 859 N.Y.S.2d 400, 889 N.E.2d 87 [2008] ; see CPL 440.30[4][b] ; comparePeople v. Stetin, 192 A.D.3d 1331, 1332–1334, 143 N.Y.S.3d 460 [2021] ). In any event, we cannot say that the failure to investigate the alleged recantation constitutes the ineffective assistance of counsel, given that "recantation evidence is inherently unreliable" ( People v. Beaver, 150 A.D.3d 1325, 1325–1326, 54 N.Y.S.3d 712 [2017] [internal quotation marks, brackets, ellipsis and citations omitted]; seePeople v. Lane, 100 A.D.3d 1540, 1541, 954 N.Y.S.2d 363 [2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 1063, 962 N.Y.S.2d 613, 985 N.E.2d 923 [2013] ) and the other significant evidence against defendant, including his own admissions to committing the offense (seePeople v. Kamp, 161 A.D.3d 1394, 1395, 77 N.Y.S.3d 572 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1150, 83 N.Y.S.3d 431, 108 N.E.3d 505 [2018] ).

Defendant also contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate an alleged recantation by the victim. In support of his motion, however, which is based upon information outside the record, defendant did not proffer any sworn allegations substantiating his claim and, instead, proffered only his own affidavit, which merely "recit[es] the chronology of his case" (People v Kennedy, 46 A.D.3d 1099, 1101 [2007], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 841 [2008]; see CPL 440.30 [4] [b]; compare People v Stetin, 192 A.D.3d 1331, 1332-1334 [2021]). In any event, we cannot say that the failure to investigate the alleged recantation constitutes the ineffective assistance of counsel, given that "recantation evidence is inherently unreliable" (People v Beaver, 150 A.D.3d 1325, 1325-1326 [2017] [internal quotation marks, brackets, ellipsis and citations omitted]; see People v Lane, 100 A.D.3d 1540, 1541 [2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 1063 [2013]) and the other significant evidence against defendant, including his own admissions to committing the offense (see People v Kamp, 161 A.D.3d 1394, 1395 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1150 [2018]).

As for his claim of actual innocence, defendant contends that the officers who investigated the victim's 911 call tampered with the crime scene. The documentary evidence annexed to defendant's motion papers with respect to this claim does not tend to substantiate it and is insufficient to make out a prima facie case of actual innocence (seePeople v. Ramos, 194 A.D.3d 964, 966, 149 N.Y.S.3d 171 [2021] ; People v. Velazquez, 143 A.D.3d 126, 137, 37 N.Y.S.3d 481 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1189, 52 N.Y.S.3d 716, 75 N.E.3d 108 [2017] ; comparePeople v. Stetin, 192 A.D.3d 1331, 1334–1335, 143 N.Y.S.3d 460 [2021] ). Moreover, defendant's nonrecord claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are either unsubstantiated (see CPL 440.30[4][b] ), contradicted by documentary evidence (see CPL 440.30[4][c], [d] ) or would not entitle him to relief (seePeople v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d at 799–800, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, 488 N.E.2d 834 ).

As for his claim of actual innocence, defendant contends that the officers who investigated the victim's 911 call tampered with the crime scene. The documentary evidence annexed to defendant's motion papers with respect to this claim does not tend to substantiate it and is insufficient to make out a prima facie case of actual innocence (see People v Ramos, 194 A.D.3d 964, 966 [2021]; People v Velazquez, 143 A.D.3d 126, 137 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1189 [2017]; compare People v Stetin, 192 A.D.3d 1331, 1334-1335 [2021]). Moreover, defendant's nonrecord claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are either unsubstantiated (see CPL 440.30 [4] [b]), contradicted by documentary evidence (see CPL 440.30 [4] [c], [d]) or would not entitle him to relief (see People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d at 799-800).