Ordered that the order dated March 3, 2009, is affirmed, with costs.
A motion for leave to renew must be (1) based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination, and (2) set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion ( see CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]; Novosiadlyi v James, 70 AD3d 793, 794; Baldwin v Mateogarcia, 66 AD3d 806, 806-807). Here, the new facts submitted by the petitioner did not warrant a change in the Supreme Court's original determination, and the petitioner did not offer a reasonable justification for her failure to present those facts when she made her initial motion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petitioner's motion for leave to renew ( see generally Development Strategies Co., LLC, Profit Sharing Plan v Astoria Equities, Inc., 71 AD3d 628; Matter of Korman v Bellmore Pub. Schools, 62 AD3d 882, 884).
The petitioner's remaining contentions either refer to matter dehors the record or are otherwise not properly before us on this appeal.