DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs commenced this action eleven years after the respondent defaulted on his mortgage payments and, accordingly, beyond the expiration of the applicable six-year Statute of Limitations. There is no evidence that the respondent's promises to pay were intended to lull the plaintiffs into inactivity until after the expiration of the Statute of Limitations, giving rise to an estoppel (see, Bennett v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 231 A.D.2d 662 ;Kiernan v. Long Island R.R., 209 A.D.2d 588 ; Terry v. Long Island R.R., 207 A.D.2d 881 ; Degori v. Long Island R.R., 202 A.D.2d 549 ). Further, the listing of the debt on Ventura's bankruptcy petition did not constitute written acknowledgment of the debt with the intent to pay so as to remove the Statute of Limitations as a bar to recovery (see, Filigree Films, Inc. Pension Plan v. CBC Realty Corp., 229 A.D.2d 862 ; see also, Estate of Vengroski v. Garden Inn, 114 A.D.2d 927 ).