DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order dated March 5, 1999, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated July 1, 1999, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
In this action arising out of a multi-vehicle automobile accident, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Errol McLeggan which was for summary judgment dismissing all cross claims. The defendant Errol McLeggan demonstrated that the plaintiff's vehicle came to a complete stop behind him without coming into contact with his vehicle before the plaintiff's vehicle was then struck by the vehicle operated by the defendant Ian C. Sandiford (see, Ner v. Celis, 245 A.D.2d 278, 279 ;Lehmann v. Sheaves, 231 A.D.2d 687 ; Chamberlin v. Suffolk County Labor Dept., 221 A.D.2d 580 ).
In addition, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to renew. The appellant failed to establish a reasonable excuse as to why the additional facts offered by him were not submitted on the original motion (see,Guerrero v. Dublin Up Corp. of N.Y., 260 A.D.2d 435 ; Matter of Barnes v. State of New York, 159 A.D.2d 753 ).