DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"It is well settled that a motion for leave to renew must be supported by new or additional facts which, although in existence at the time of a prior motion, were not known to the party seeking renewal, and, consequently, not made known to the court" (Matter of Brooklyn Welding Corp. v. Chin, 236 A.D.2d 39 2; see, Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568; CPLR 2221). Leave to renew should be denied unless the moving party offers a reasonable explanation as to why the additional facts were not submitted on the original application (see, Cannistra v. Gibbons, 224 A.D.2d 570, 571; Inuk Lee v. Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 226 A.D.2d 226, 227; see also, Mangine v. Keller, 182 A.D.2d 476, 477). Here, the appellants failed to provide the Supreme Court with a reasonable excuse why the additional facts were not presented at the time of the original applications and were not previously brought to the attention of the court. Therefore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellants' motion which was for leave to renew (see, Motts v. Cohen, 264 A.D.2d 764; Petito v. Verrazano Contr. Co., 246 A.D.2d 636).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.