Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Proper procedure dictates that a motion to remove an action from the Civil Court to the Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (b) must be accompanied by a request for leave to amend the ad damnum clause of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b). In this case, the amount stated in the ad damnum clause was within the jurisdictional limits of the Civil Court, and the request for leave to amend was not made. In the absence of an application to increase the ad damnum clause, the Supreme Court's denial of removal was proper (see, Huston v Rao, 74 A.D.2d 127, 130-131; Daniels v. Russell, 81 Misc.2d 775, 777; 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ Prac ¶ 325.11; Siegel, NY Prac § 25).
Furthermore, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the application to renew the request for removal where the plaintiff failed to offer any excuse for not submitting the additional facts in the original application (see, McRory v Craft Architectural Metals Corp., 112 A.D.2d 358, 359). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Eiber, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.