1. We know him to live in New York.
1-1. He is known to live in New York.
2. We know him to be living in New York.
2-2. He is known to be living in New York.
(What is the difference between #1 and #2?)
There is no difference in meaning between 1 and 2.
The difference between sentences #1 and #2 lies in the verb tense used: "live" versus "be living."
In sentence #1, "We know him to live in New York," we use the base form of the verb "live" without any progressive aspect. This indicates a general or habitual action. It implies that the person's residence in New York is a consistent fact or a long-standing situation.
In sentence #2, "We know him to be living in New York," we use the present progressive form of the verb "be" with the present participle "living." This indicates an ongoing or temporary action. It suggests that the person's residence in New York might be more recent or not necessarily a permanent situation.
So, the difference between #1 and #2 lies in the aspect of the action: #1 implies a general or habitual situation, and #2 suggests an ongoing or temporary situation. The choice between these structures depends on the specific context or timeframe being referred to.