You are here: / / Criteria for Restarting the Statute of Limitations by Acknowledging a Debt...
,

Criteria for Restarting the Statute of Limitations by Acknowledging a Debt Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)

Although the criteria was not met here. the Second Department explained when a writing will restart the statutory limitations period for collecting on a debt:

General Obligations Law § 17-101 effectively revives a time-barred claim when the debtor has signed a writing which validly acknowledges the debt” … . “To constitute an acknowledgment of a debt, a writing must recognize an existing debt and contain nothing inconsistent with an intention on the part of the debtor to pay it” … . Mosab Constr Corp v Prospect Park Yeshiva Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 00505, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

You might also like
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MODIFIED THE PARENTAL ACCESS PROVISIONS OF THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
Demolition of Building Without Notice or Opportunity to Be Heard Was a Proper Exercise of City’s Police Powers
Abutting Property Owner Did Not Have a Duty to Maintain Crowd Control Barriers Placed on Sidewalk by City
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL AND HOLD A MEMBER OF DEFENDANT LLC PERSONALLY LIABLE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE LLC MEMBER PERSONALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE FEDERAL CONSPIRACY-TO-DEAL-IN-FIREARMS STATUTE HAS DIFFERENT ELEMENTS THAN ITS NEW YORK EQUIVALENT AND THEREFORE CAN NOT BE THE BASIS OF A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH AN ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN ISSUED, NO JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WAS ENTERED; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS STILL VIABLE AND PLAINTIFFS COULD MOVE TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE DEFENDANT SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT NEED TO ADDRESS ANY ESPINAL EXCEPTION IN ITS ANSWER BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE AN EXCEPTION APPLIED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT AN ESPINAL EXCEPTION APPLIED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Did Not Consent to Entry of Police Into His Home—the Police Accompanied a Parole Officer for the Express Purpose of Investigating a Burglary—Motion to Suppress Should Have Been Granted

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Twenty-Day Time-Limit for Making an Application to Stay Arbitration Starts When... Conviction Reversed Because Court Failed to Inquire About the Reasons for Defendant’s...