Knoll v. Datek Sec. Corp., 2 A.D.3d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Knoll v. Datek Sec. Corp., 2 A.D.3d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2010–2013 · 2 courts · …contain nothing inconsistent with an intention on the part of the debtor to pay it. ✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2004–2014 · 2 courts · …in determining the effectiveness of an acknowledgment, the critical determination is whether the acknowledgment imports an intention to pay. ✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2008–2015 · …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 at p. 595 ✓
30 citation events (30 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hawk Mtn. LLC v. RAM Capital Group LLC (nyappdiv, 2021-03-04)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hawk Mtn. LLC v. RAM Capital Group LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Corp. , 2 AD3d 594, 595 [2d Dept 2003]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hawk Mtn. LLC v. RAM Capital Group LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Corp. , 2 AD3d 594, 595 [2d Dept 2003]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McQueen v. Bank of New York
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2017 · confidence medium
Corp., 2 AD3d 594, 595 [2d Dept 2003].) In the matter sub judice, plaintiff requested a loan modification which was then rejected by defendant.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Costa v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
S.D.N.Y. · 2017 · confidence medium
Corp., 2 A.D.3d 594, 769 N.Y.S.2d 581, 582 (2d Dep’t 2003)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Reiss v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2016 · confidence medium
Corp., 2 AD3d 594, 594 [2d Dept 2003], citing Lew Morris Demolition Co. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 40 NY2d 516, 521 [1976]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mosab Construction Corp. v. Prospect Park Yeshiva, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Corp., 2 AD3d 594, 595 [2003]; see Lew Morris Demolition Co. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 40 NY2d 516, 520 [1976]; Paonessa *734 v C & L Bldr./Dev., Inc., 50 AD3d at 1336 ; Erdheim v Gelfman, 303 AD2d 714, 715 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Good Luck Product Co. v. Crystal Cove Seafood Corp. (2×)
E.D.N.Y · 2014 · confidence medium
Corp., 2 A.D.3d 594, 594 , 769 N.Y.S.2d 581, 582 (2d Dep’t 2003)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clarex Ltd. v. Natixis Securities Americas LLC (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D.N.Y. · 2013 · confidence medium
For a writing to restart the limitations period for a debt, it must (1) “recognize an existing debt” and (2) “contain nothing inconsistent with an intention on the part of the debtor to pay it.” Knoll v. Datek Securities Corp., 2 A.D.3d 594 , 769 N.Y.S.2d 581, 582 (2d Dep’t 2003) (citing Lew Morris Demolition Co., Inc. v. Bd. of Ed. of City of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 516, 519 , 387 N.Y.S.2d 409 , 355 N.E.2d 369 (1976)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Paonessa v. C & L Builder/Developer, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Corp., 2 AD3d 594, 595 [2003] [citation omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lynford v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Corp., 2 AD3d 594, 595 [2003]), it is undisputed that these documents were neither communicated to the plaintiff or to anyone on his behalf, nor intended to influence the plaintiffs conduct in any manner.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Roth v. Speilman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Corp., 2 AD3d 594, 595 [2003]; Skiadas v Terovolas, 271 AD2d 521 [2000]; Estate of Vengroski v Garden Inn, 114 AD2d 927 [1985]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Yezhak Dov Knoll
v.
Datek Securities Corporation
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 15, 2003.
2 A.D.3d 594
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover brokerage commissions, the defendants[*595] appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), dated August 8, 2002, as denied that branch of their motion which was to dismiss as time-barred the plaintiffs claims for commissions accruing before November. 13, 1995.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a trial on the issues raised by that branch of the motion which was to dismiss as time-barred the plaintiffs claim for commissions accruing before November 13, 1995, and for a determination thereafter of that branch of the motion.

The plaintiff commenced this action in November 2001 to recover brokerage commissions, some of which accrued before 1995. The defendants moved, inter alia, to dismiss the plaintiffs claims for commissions accruing before November 13, 1995, asserting that they were time-barred pursuant to CPLR 213 (2). The Supreme Court denied that branch of the motion. We reverse.

In opposition to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff submitted commission analysis statements, arguing that the statements were written acknowledgments sufficient to take the action outside the statute of limitations (see General Obligations Law § 17-101).

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 (see Morris Demolition Co. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 40 NY2d 516, 521 [1976]). In determining the effectiveness of an acknowledgment, the critical determination is whether the acknowledgment imports an intention to pay (see Estate of Vengroski v Garden Inn, 114 AD2d 927, 928 [1985]). A trial is required to ascertain the defendants’ intent in listing a balance on the commission analysis statements and whether the commission analysis documents constitute written acknowledgments of a debt sufficient to take the action outside the statute of limitations (see General Obligations Law § 17-101; CPLR 3211 [c]). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to conduct a trial on the issues raised by that branch of the motion, and for a determination thereafter of that branch of the motion. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.