DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Since the allegedly new and additional facts proffered by the plaintiffs in support of their motion for leave to renew were readily available at the time of their original motion, they did not constitute newly-discovered evidence within the meaning of CPLR 2221 ( see Guerrero v. Dublin Up Corp. of N.Y., 260 A.D.2d 435). Thus, on this record, including the plaintiffs' failure to proffer a reasonable excuse for not having included the omitted information in their original motion, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying their motion for leave to renew.
PRUDENTI, P.J., FLORIO, H. MILLER, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.