Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e) (2), (3), a motion for leave to renew must be "based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination," and the motion papers must contain a "reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion."
Although the Court of Appeals' reversal of the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department's decision in Kralik v 239 E. 79th St. Owners Corp. ( 5 NY3d 54, 59), changed the general law relevant to the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, it would not change the original determination of that motion in this action. The controlling documents failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff had been designated a holder of unsold shares, with all of the rights emanating therefrom. Thus, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits ( see CPLR 6301; Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860; W.T. Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496; Price Paper Twine Co. v Miller, 182 AD2d 748), and the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of its motion which was for leave to renew.