Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the defendants Steven C. Kunis, Paul Adler, Century 21 Rand, Prudential Rand, Kenneth Bergstol, and Patrick Farms, LLC, appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew since he did not offer a reasonable justification for not presenting the additional facts on the prior motion ( see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; Gallagher v. Daniella's Rest., 6 AD3d 659; Albanese v. Hametz, 4 AD3d 379, 380; LaRosa v. Trapani, 271 AD2d 506; McNeill v. Sandiford, 270 AD2d 467). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the new facts would have changed the prior determination ( see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; Kraeling v. Leading Edge Elec., 2 AD3d 789, 791; Suffolk Nassau Amusement Co. v. Wurlitzer Co., 24 AD2d 893, 894).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.