Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court properly exercised its discretion when it denied the defendant's motion to reopen the suppression hearing. Since the defendant did not present any additional, pertinent evidence warranting the reopening of the suppression hearing ( see, CPL 710.40; People v Fuentes, 53 NY2d 892, 894; People v Graham, 120 AD2d 674; see also, People v Lee, 216 AD2d 326), the motion was properly denied. The "additional facts" relied upon by the defendant were within his knowledge at the time of the first hearing and, thus, did not constitute newly-discovered evidence ( see, CPL 710.40; People v Adams, 224 AD2d 433; People v Accardi, 222 AD2d 596; People v Toxey, 220 AD2d 204; People v Mitchell-Benetiz, 168 AD2d 994).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit.