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.