DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The requirement that a motion for renewal be based upon newly-discovered facts is a flexible one, and a court, in its discretion, may grant renewal upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the original motion ( see, Oremland v. Miller Minutemen Constr. Corp., 133 A.D.2d 816). Under the circumstances of this case, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew. Upon renewal, the court properly vacated its prior order granting the defendant summary judgment, as questions of fact exist as to whether the defendant was negligent and, if so, whether such negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
We note that regardless of when treatment began, whether in 1982 as the plaintiff claims or in 1987 as the defendant contends, the 2 1/2-year Statute of Limitations was tolled by the continuous treatment doctrine ( see, CPLR 214-a; McDermott v. Torre, 56 N.Y.2d 399). Accordingly, the plaintiff's action was timely commenced.
S. MILLER, J.P., O'BRIEN, FRIEDMANN, and FLORIO, JJ., concur.