Opinion
Argued January 30, 2001
February 26, 2001.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered October 4, 1999, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Peckel Family Limited Partnership which was to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against the respondent as untimely.
Jeffrey Mintz, New York, N.Y. (Wylie Stecklow of counsel), for appellant.
John J. Gochman, Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: O'BRIEN, J.P., RITTER, ALTMAN and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff`s contention that the limitations period was extended pursuant to General Obligations Law §§ 17-101 and 17-105 is without merit. The letters relied upon by the plaintiff contained a settlement offer conditioned on the plaintiff's acceptance of a disputed reduction in the principal amount of the mortgage — a condition which was never accepted by the plaintiff. The letters did not constitute an unconditional and unqualified acknowledgment of a debt (see, Petito v. Piffath, 85 N.Y.2d 1, 8-9, cert denied 516 U.S. 864; Morris Demolition v. Board of Educ., 40 N.Y.2d 516, 521; Sitkiewicz v. County of Sullivan, 25 6 A.D.2d 884; Estate of Bonis v. Djabbarzadeh, 245 A.D.2d 260; National Westminster Bank v. Petito, 202 A.D.2d 193; Sichol v. Crocker, 177 A.D.2d 842). Similarly, there is no merit to the plaintiff's contention that the respondent is equitably estopped from asserting the Statute of Limitations as a defense. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion.