Opinion
February 1, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.).
Ordered that the appeals from the orders dated February 28, 1990, and March 22, 1990, are dismissed as academic, since those orders were vacated by the order dated April 17, 1990; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated April 17, 1990 is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
We find no merit to the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly denied his motion to set aside the judgment of divorce on the ground of newly-discovered evidence (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [2]). The motion was addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the court did not improvidently exercise that discretion (see, Matter of Zappala v Hann, 175 A.D.2d 596; Camala Co. v Inland Credit Corp., 161 A.D.2d 532). Balletta, J.P., Eiber, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.