These alleged "new facts" were in the form of a copy of the matrimonial order and several other documents not submitted in support of the initial cross motion. Renewal should have been denied since the defendant did not offer an excuse for his failure to present the underlying order or the other materials in support of the initial cross motion ( see O'Connell v Post, 27 AD3d 631; Elder v Elder, 21 AD3d 1055; Petersen v Lysaght, Lysaght Kramer, P.C., 19 AD3d 391; Daria v Beacon Capital Co., 299 AD2d 312, 313).
A motion for leave to renew must (1) be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination, and (2) set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion ( see CPLR 2221 [e]; O'Connell v Post, 27 AD3d 631; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473). The appellants failed to set forth a reasonable justification for their failure to present the alleged new facts on the prior motion ( see O'Connell v Post, 27 AD3d 631; Elder v Elder, 21 AD3d 1055).
Since the defendants failed to demonstrate that the court misapprehended any of the relevant facts that were before it or misapplied any controlling principle of law, we agree with the court's adherence to its original determination denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them as untimely (seeBudoff v. City of New York, 164 A.D.3d 737, 738–739, 83 N.Y.S.3d 163 ; NYCTL 1998–2 Trust v. Michael Holdings, Inc., 77 A.D.3d 805, 806, 910 N.Y.S.2d 469 ).The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendants' motion which was for leave to renew, since the defendants failed to set forth a reasonable justification for their failure to present the allegedly new facts on their prior motion (seeDeutsche Bank Trust Co. v. Ghaness, 100 A.D.3d 585, 586, 953 N.Y.S.2d 301 ; O'Connell v. Post, 27 A.D.3d 631, 631, 810 N.Y.S.2d 668 ).Following issuance of the order dated February 7, 2017, the defendants moved to strike the note of issue and certificate of readiness and to compel certain additional discovery.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion when it, in effect, denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to renew her opposition to the defendants' respective motions for summary judgment ( see CPLR 2221 [e]; O'Connell v Post, 27 AD3d 631; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472). The plaintiff sought leave to renew her opposition to the defendants' motions for summary judgment so that she could submit the dental records relied upon by her expert, which she failed to submit with her original opposition.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the cross motion ( see Trans-World Trading, Ltd. v North Shore Univ. Hosp. at Plain-view, 64 AD3d 698; Napoli v Canada Dry Bottling Co. of N.Y., 166 AD2d 696; Beuschel v Malm, 114 AD2d 569). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew his prior cross motion, since the plaintiff failed to set forth a reasonable justification for his failure to present the alleged new facts on the prior cross motion ( see CPLR 2221 [e]; NYCTL 1999-1 Trust v Surf Coney Is., Inc., 63 AD3d 1023; O'Connell v Post, 27 AD3d 631). Given the plaintiff's failure to appear for continued deposition by the date set by the Supreme Court, and the history of this action, the imposition of sanctions upon the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3126 was appropriate ( see Carbajal v Bobo Robo, Inc., 38 AD3d 820; Makris v Westchester County, 21 AD3d 931).
Evidence offered regarding plaintiffs' counsel's medical condition as of early March of 2008, offered in support of that aspect of their motion seeking renewal, was not based on new facts not offered on the prior motion, nor would it have changed the court's prior determination that plaintiffs had engaged in an extensive pattern of noncompliance with discovery demands ( see O'Connell v Post, 27 AD3d 631). Motion seeking to strike brief and for other related relief granted to the extent of striking references in the brief to matters dehors the record.
Ordered that the order dated February 6, 2008 is affirmed, with costs. A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new or additional facts "not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination" (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]), and "shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; see O'Connell v Post, 27 AD3d 631; see also O'Dell v Caswell, 12 AD3d 492; Rizzotto v Allstate Ins. Co., 300 AD2d 562; Williams v Fitzsimmons, 295 AD2d 342). The plaintiff's motion for leave to renew was properly denied since he failed to set forth a reasonable justification for his failure to present the alleged new facts on the prior motion ( see O'Connell v Post, 27 AD3d at 631).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to renew. The plaintiffs failed to present a reasonable justification for their failure to present certain "new facts" on the original motion and cross motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; see O'Connell v Post, 27 AD3d 631; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472). In any event, those facts would not have changed the prior determinations ( see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d at 472)
"A motion for leave to renew is addressed to the sound discretion of the court" ( Matheus v Weiss, 20 AD3d 454, 454-455). A motion for leave to renew must be based upon "new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination" (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]) and must contain "reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; see Matter of Leyberman v Leyberman, 43 AD3d 925; Worrell v Parkway Estates, LLC, 43 AD3d 436, 437; O'Connell v Post, 27 AD3d 631; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473; O'Dell v Caswell, 12 AD3d 492). A motion for leave to renew "is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation" ( Matter of Weinberg, 132 AD2d 190, 210; see Worrell v Parkway Estates, LLC, 43 AD3d at 437; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d at 473; O'Dell v Caswell, 12 AD3d 492).
Furthermore, a motion for leave to renew must (1) be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination and (2) set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion ( see CPLR 2221 [e]; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472). Those branches of the plaintiff's two motions which were for leave to renew were properly denied since the plaintiff failed to set forth a reasonable justification for its failure to present the alleged new facts on the prior motion ( see O'Connell v Post, 27 AD3d 631) and failed to present "new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination" (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]).