In People v. Seneci, 133 A.D.2d 432 (2d Dept. 1987) the defendant was convicted of numerous counts of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, with respect to the theft of several video game machines at a Coney Island arcade. At trial, the defendant's wife and two employees testified that defendant was at his Valley Stream office during the time of the alleged theft (id. at 432). Following the verdict of guilt, the defendant moved to set aside the verdict on the basis of newly discovered evidence - - namely an affidavit of a man who stated that at the time of the crime he was with defendant in his Valley Stream office negotiating a sale. He also offered various bank statements and purchase documents in support of his motion (id). Additionally, the defendant submitted an affidavit stating that he did not produce this evidence until after trial because he had forgotten about the sale until he inadvertently discovered the aforementioned documents. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's denial of the 440 motion, finding that "the defendant's excuses for failing to present this evidence until after the conclusion of trial failed to satisfy the requirement that the 'newly discovered evidence' be such as could not have been discovered prior to trial by the exercise of due diligence" (id. at 433).