Yes, and you can derive it from the expression for the average. Let the average of the first $n$ numbers be $\mu_n$. The formula for it is
$$\mu_n = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n x_i$$
Then you can derive
$$n \mu_n = \sum_{i=1}^nx_i = x_n + \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} x_i = x_n + (n-1)\mu_{n-1}$$
and hence, dividing by $n$,
$$\mu_n = \frac{(n-1) \mu_{n-1} + x_n}{n}$$
i.e. to calculate the new average after then $n$th number, you multiply the old average by $n-1$, add the new number, and divide the total by $n$.
In your example, you have the old average of 2.5 and the third number is 10. So you multiply 2.5 by 2 (to get 5), add 10 (to get 15) and divide by 3 (to get 5, which is the correct average).
Note that this is functionally equivalent to keeping a running sum of all the numbers you've seen so far, and dividing by $n$ to get the average whenever you want it (although, from an implementation point of view, it may be better to compute the average as you go using the formula I gave above. For example, if the running sum ever gets larger than $10^{308}$ish then it may be too large to represent as a standard floating point number, even though the average can be represented).