DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
"A motion to renew is intended to draw the court's attention to new or additional facts which, although in existence at the time of the original motion, were unknown to the party seeking leave to renew and therefore not brought to the court's attention" ( Natale v. Samel Assocs., 264 A.D.2d 384, 385). However, this requirement is a flexible one and the court, in its discretion, may grant renewal, in the interest of justice, upon facts which were known to the movant where the movant offers a reasonable justification for failing to submit them on the earlier motion ( see Hasmath v. Cameb, A.D.3d [2d Dept, Mar. 8, 2004]; Bepat v. Chandler, 2 A.D.3d 764; Vita v. Alstom Signaling, 308 A.D.2d 582; cf. Morrison v. Rosenberg, 278 A.D.2d 392; Cole-Hatchard v. Grand Union, 270 A.D.2d 447). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting leave to renew.
Upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly vacated its prior orders, and, in effect, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. There are triable issues of fact with respect to liability for the subject accident ( see CPLR 3212; see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557).
FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.