.In an action to recover on a promissory note, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Meade, J.), entered May 7, 1986, which denied their motion to vacate a judgment entered against them on July 8, 1985.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We find no error in the determination of the Supreme Court that the defendants failed to establish that the judgment against them was procured by fraud (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). The defendants’ contention that the plaintiff was seeking to recover an illegal brokerage commission is nothing more than a newly interposed theory of defense which could have been asserted prior to the entry of judgment (see, Central Funding Co. v Kimler,
