POULOS v. U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In support of his motion for leave to renew, the plaintiff was required to proffer both new facts not offered on the prior motion to strike the complaint that would change the Supreme Court's prior determination, and a reasonable justification for the failure to have presented such facts on the prior motion (see CPLR 2221[e][2], [3]; St. Claire v. Gaskin, 295 A.D.2d 336; Duffy v. Kokolakis Contr., 278 A.D.2d 445; HT Steel Erectors v. Albicocco, 272 A.D.2d 578; Delvecchio v. Bayside Chrysler Plymouth Jeep Eagle, 271 A.D.2d 636). As the plaintiff did neither, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination.

SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.