Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A motion for leave to renew must be supported by new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination, and the motion shall also contain a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Jacobs v Sabo, 17 AD3d 321; Hart v City of New York, 5 AD3d 438). Here, the new facts proffered would not have changed the prior determination ( see Mountains Realty Corp. v Gelbelman, 29 AD3d 874, 875; Steinberg v Steinberg, 15 AD3d 388, 389; Kingston v Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., 4 AD3d 397, 398). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew his prior motion, in effect, for leave to serve a late notice of claim.
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.