Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants moved for leave to renew a motion by the plaintiff to enter a judgment as to liability against the defendants upon their failure to appear or answer. However, because the allegedly new and additional facts proffered by the defendants in support of their motion for renewal were readily available at the time of their original opposition to the plaintiff's motion, such facts did not constitute newly-discovered evidence within the meaning of CPLR 2221 ( see, Matter of Brooklyn Welding Corp. v. Chin, 236 A.D.2d 392; Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558). Thus, on this record, including the defendants' failure to proffer a reasonable excuse for not having adduced the omitted information prior to their motion to renew, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying leave to renew.
O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.