Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Although a motion for leave to renew is generally based upon the discovery of material facts that were unknown to the movant at the time of the original motion, it is well settled that the requirement 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, Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Driscoll, 213 A.D.2d 646; Patterson v. Town of Hempstead, 104 A.D.2d 975). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendants motion to renew.
In addition, we agree with the Supreme Court that the general release submitted by the defendant upon the renewal motion was intended to release him from the promissory note at issue. Thus, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the action ( see, CPLR 3211 [a][5]).
O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.