No, not really. It would require major changes of geography and if you go that way, you might as well remove the Americas. If you used a relatively large island remote from other land as the replacement, you might be able to salvage the discovery part. It would essentially be something like taking Australia at its latitude in the south (not en route between Europe and Asia) and moving it east so that it is remote from other lands. The longitude of the Americas would be good enough.
Obviously you would be free to change everything except general size and location. The continent would probably be uninhabited or inhabited by descendant of some Polynesians with really bad luck, followed by some incredibly good luck enabling survival.
In the interest of giving a proper answer, there are three major issues:
Trade between Mediterranean and India.
Both the route around Africa and through the Middle East would at times be unavailable to some European nation due to political reasons. That is what IIRC along with some bad math motivated the Columbus Expedition.
And even if you assume the route around Africa remains always open, Brazil is simply too close for nobody to find it by accident if lots of traffic went between Europe and Cape of Good Hope. And industrialization doesn't really make sense without expanding trade. What else could use the volume production it supplies?
As noted in comments, creating open straits of Suez would help. As would simply expanding the distance between Africa and South America.
Iceland, Greenland, Newfoundland, Fish!
The gaps that need to be crossed are too close up north not to be discovered by competent navigators, if they have reasons to sail around. Industrialization, creates an expansion of economy and population, which creates vastly expanded demand for fish. Which means lots of ships with crews of solid seamanship sailing around the Northern Atlantic looking for new places to fish. Discovery would be inevitable. In fact I think the consensus is that North America was discovered several times by various peoples of the North-Western Europe. They just didn't really do anything with that discovery except some fishing and hunting.
Even if they assumed no land exists to the west they would still be looking for new fisheries in the Atlantic. And study the sea currents to find them too. It would be fairly obvious that something is affecting the flow of currents. And that whatever that was would come with lots of rich fisheries.
You might be able to argue that before the demand for fish expanded they wouldn't really care enough to do anything about reports of land to the West. Especially if you remove Iceland and Greenland so the gap to navigate becomes wider. Then you could justify an expedition to find new Atlantic fisheries based on the odd paths of the ocean currents in roughly the time frame you want.
The Bering straits
AFAIK you can still cross from Asia to America without leaving the sight of land. Any major expeditions by Europeans or the advanced Asian nations to map the coasts of North-Eastern Asia would find America for sure. You might explain this by noting that none of the Asian nations was really trade oriented enough to look within the correct time frame. You would also need to explain away the Russians. That would require a major rewrite of the history of Eastern Europe so Russians do not expand to Siberia.