What is the test for a judge to grant a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence?

The power to grant a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence is purely statutory and can only be exercised in strict compliance with the statute. (People v. Eng Hing, 212 N.Y. 373; People v. Priori, 164 N.Y. 459.) The statute itself provides that newly discovered evidence, to serve as an adequate basis for a new trial, must be "such as, if before received, would probably have changed the verdict; if such evidence has been discovered since the trial, is not cumulative; and the failure to produce it on the trial was not owing to want of diligence." This statutory provision was construed in People v. Priori (supra, p. 472), where the court said: "Newly-discovered evidence in order to be sufficient must fulfill all 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."