Order (Ruben Franco, J.), entered October 17, 2014, affirmed, with $10 costs.
Even assuming that the underlying motion for partial summary judgment was not barred by the general proscription against successive summary judgment motions, it was properly denied. Although the six-year statute of limitations applicable to breach of contract actions would bar plaintiff's claims for rent accruing prior to May 5, 2000 (see CPLR 2132 ), a triable issue is raised as to whether the written rent schedule prepared by defendant—which set forth, inter alia, the monthly rent due from 1994 through 2000, and the number of months rent was paid during this period—was sufficient to restart the statute of limitations (see General Obligations Law § 17–101; Fade v. Pugliani/Fade, 8 AD3d 612 2004 ). “Whether a purported acknowledgment is sufficient to restart the running of a period of limitations depends on the circumstances of the individual case” (Estate of Vengroski v. Garden Inn, 114 A.D.2d 927, 928 1985 ). Thus, a trial is necessary to resolve this issue (see Roth v. Speilman, 25 AD3d 383 2006 ).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.