Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On their motion for summary judgment, the appellants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324), by demonstrating that any medical malpractice claims based upon alleged acts they committed prior to January 1, 2003, were time-barred ( see CPLR 214-a). However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous treatment doctrine ( see Cherise v Braff, 50 AD3d 724, 726; Mosezhnik v Berenstein, 33 AD3d 895, 896). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing, as time-barred, so much of the complaint as was based upon their alleged acts of medical malpractice committed prior to January 1, 2003.