New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. General Obligations Law § 17-101 (2026)

Acknowledgment or new promise must be in writing

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 17-101. Acknowledgment or new promise must be in writing. An
acknowledgment or promise contained in a writing signed by the party to
be charged thereby is the only competent evidence of a new or continuing
contract whereby to take an action out of the operation of the
provisions of limitations of time for commencing actions under the civil
practice law and rules other than an action for the recovery of real
property. This section does not alter the effect of a payment of
principal or interest.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 123 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Banco do Brasil S. A. v. State of Antigua & Barbuda, 268 A.D.2d 75 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Banco do Brasil S. A. v. State of Antigua & Barbuda, 268 A.D.2d 75 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · cites it 5× “In this action for breach of a loan agreement and associated promissory notes and guarantees, we are called upon to determine whether defendants’ 1997 letter regarding their loan agreement, sent to plaintiffs after the Statute of Limitations had run, constituted an…”

Petito v. Piffath, 647 N.E.2d 732 (NY 1994). · cites it 4× “This case presents the question whether under General Obligations Law §§ 17-101, 17-105 (1) or §17-107 (2) (b) a stipulation settling a foreclosure action could properly be construed as a written acknowledgment of the underlying mortgage debt, a promise to pay or a part payment…”

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. MacPherson, 2021 NY Slip Op 06672 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). · cites it 3× “The plaintiff argued that, by signing the loan modification agreement on November 21, 2017, MacPherson acknowledged the debt and re-started the statute of limitations in accordance with General Obligations Law § 17-101. In opposition, Quantuck Farms argued that the loan…”

Toobian v. Toobian, 2022 NY Slip Op 05880 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). · cites it 2× “They contended, among other things, that the email did not constitute an acknowledgment of the debt pursuant to General Obligations Law § 17-101. In an order dated May 21, 2019, the Supreme Court denied the motion and the cross motion without prejudice to renew upon proper…”

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Paniagua, 2022 NY Slip Op 04708 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff argues that the defendant entered into a loan modification agreement, which constituted an acknowledgment of the mortgage debt under General Obligations Law § 17-101 sufficient to reset the statute of limitations to commence a future foreclosure action on the…”

Faulkner v. Arista Records LLC, 602 F. Supp. 2d 470 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). · cites it 2× “General Obligations Law § 17-101 , a written acknowl-edgement of a contractual obligation made subsequent to the execution of the contract may effectively toll the statute of limitations for a breach of contract claim. Section 17-101 provides that: “An acknowledgement or promise…”

Commodore Factors Corp. v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 07160 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). · cites it 3× “In support of its motion, Deutsche Bank argued, among other things, that, pursuant to General Obligations Law § 17-101, the lien modification agreement revived the statute of limitations period to foreclose on its mortgage.”

Lynford v. Williams, 34 A.D.3d 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · cites it 2× “In response, the plaintiff contended that the limitations period had been renewed under General Obligations Law § 17-101 by two alleged acknowledgments of the debt made by the appellant.”

Knoll v. Datek Sec. Corp., 2 A.D.3d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · cites it 2× “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).”

Fin. Assistance, Inc. v. Graham, 2021 NY Slip Op 08168 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). “Further, the tolling provision set forth in General Obligations Law § 17-101 expressly applies only to contract actions, and is inapplicable to a fraud claim ( see generally Nationstar Mtge.”

Cohan v. Movtady, 751 F. Supp. 2d 436 (E.D.N.Y 2010). · cites it 2× “Unlike an “acknowledgement or promise” to repay a debt under N.Y. General Obligations Law § 17-101 , the Promissory Note created new legal obligations with different rights and liabilities than the earlier oral contracts.”

Erdheim v. Gelfman, 303 A.D.2d 714 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · cites it 2× “As to a written acknowledgment, pursuant to General Obligations Law § 17-101, the statute of limitations will be tolled by a signed written acknowledgment of an existing debt which contains nothing inconsistent with an intention on the part of the debtor to pay it (id.”

Show all 123 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.