New York Statute of Limitations on Credit Card Debt: 3 Years Under CPLR § 214-i (Plus the Borrowing Statute)

Effective April 7, 2022, New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 214-i imposed a three-year statute of limitations on actions to collect a consumer credit transaction commenced by an original creditor or any party standing in the shoes of an original creditor. The provision was added by the Consumer Credit Fairness Act (CCFA), L. 2021, ch. 593, signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on November 8, 2021.

"Consumer credit transaction" is defined in CPLR § 105(f) as a transaction where credit is extended to an individual primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Credit card debt qualifies under that definition.

The clock starts at breach — the date of your last payment on the account. When you stopped making required payments, the breach that starts the SOL clock occurred. Practical example: if your last payment was March 15, 2022, the three-year SOL under CPLR § 214-i expires March 15, 2025. A complaint filed after that date on the same account is presumptively time-barred — but only if you assert the defense properly in your Answer. The SOL does not dismiss a case automatically; you must raise it.

The three-year period runs from the date the complaint is filed in court, not the date you were served.

Before April 7, 2022, the default statute of limitations on credit card debt in New York was six years under CPLR § 213(2) — the general contract limitation period. Most online articles about New York credit card debt still cite six years. Those articles reflect the pre-CCFA rule and are out of date. For any lawsuit filed after April 7, 2022, the CCFA changed the analysis.

The CCFA's legislative history is explicit: the New York Legislature found that the six-year period was too long for consumer credit transactions and that debt buyers were using it to file lawsuits on substantially aged accounts. CPLR § 214-i was enacted specifically to reduce that window.

Transition analysis for debts that defaulted BEFORE April 7, 2022 but where the lawsuit is filed AFTER April 7, 2022: if the debt is more than six years old, it is time-barred under both the old § 213(2) and the new § 214-i — no ambiguity. If the debt is three to six years old as of the complaint date, New York courts are working through the transition rules. The safest approach is to plead BOTH the six-year CPLR § 213(2) defense and the three-year CPLR § 214-i defense in your Answer's affirmative defenses — New York procedural rules permit alternative pleading.

For the complete CCFA framework — including pleading requirements, default judgment standards, and the Fair Consumer Judgment Interest Act — see the companion post at /blog/portfolio-recovery-associates-suing-me-new-york.

New York's borrowing statute is the depth layer that aggregator articles consistently miss. CPLR § 202 provides: "An action based upon a cause of action accruing without the state cannot be commenced after the expiration of the time limited by the laws of either the state or the place without the state where the cause of action accrued, except that where the cause of action accrued in favor of a resident of the state the time limited by the laws of the state shall apply."

In plain English: when the cause of action accrued in another state, New York applies whichever statute of limitations is shorter — the foreign state's or New York's.

For credit card debt, New York courts look to the state where the issuing bank's main office is located to determine where the cause of action accrued. If the bank's main office is in a state with a shorter SOL than New York's, CPLR § 202 imports the shorter period.

The borrowing statute was most consequential for pre-April 2022 debts governed by the old six-year CPLR § 213(2) period. For those accounts, CPLR § 202 imported the shorter Delaware or Virginia period — three years — even before the CCFA changed New York's default to three years. For post-April 2022 debts where CPLR § 214-i already provides three years, the borrowing statute typically produces the same result for Delaware and Virginia issuers (since their SOLs are also three years). But the CPLR § 202 framework remains the controlling authority when the analysis depends on the bank's main-office location, and it is the doctrinal basis for the New York Court of Appeals decision in Portfolio Recovery Associates v. King.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. King, 14 N.Y.3d 410, 901 N.Y.S.2d 575, 927 N.E.2d 1059 (April 29, 2010), is the controlling New York Court of Appeals authority on the borrowing statute as applied to credit card debt. Opinion by Judge Pigott.

Critical framing note: King is frequently miscited in debt-defense materials as a foundation or standing case. It is not. The Third Department's underlying decision (55 A.D.3d 1074, 2008) actually ruled FOR Portfolio Recovery Associates on standing — the appellate division found PRA had standing to bring the lawsuit. The New York Court of Appeals reversed on statute-of-limitations grounds only. King has no doctrinal value on foundation or standing questions.

What the Court of Appeals held: PRA, as assignee of Discover Bank, "stood in the shoes" of the original creditor for purposes of CPLR § 202. The cause of action on the credit card debt accrued in the state of the original creditor's main office — Discover Bank's main office was in Greenwood, Delaware. Delaware's three-year SOL (10 Del. C. § 8106, delcode.delaware.gov/title10/c081/index.html) applied, and PRA's New York lawsuit was time-barred because it had been filed more than three years after the last payment.

The doctrinal rule from King: when a debt buyer sues in New York on a credit card account, the relevant question for CPLR § 202 is where the ORIGINAL creditor's main office is — not where the debt buyer is located, not where the consumer lives. A debt buyer stands in the shoes of the original creditor for borrowing-statute purposes.

Practical implication for defendants: when Midland Funding or Portfolio Recovery Associates sues you in New York, identify the original creditor named in the complaint and that bank's main-office location. If the bank's main office is in a state with a shorter SOL, CPLR § 202 imports that shorter period and PRA v. King is the controlling authority.

The borrowing-statute analysis turns on the issuing bank's main-office location. Verify the issuing entity on your original account statements — corporate restructuring can change the analysis. Here are the typical locations for major issuers:

Delaware main-office banks — Delaware's three-year SOL (10 Del. C. § 8106, delcode.delaware.gov/title10/c081/index.html) applies via CPLR § 202:

Discover Bank (Greenwood, DE) — the original creditor in PRA v. King. Note: Discover Bank was acquired by Capital One in May 2025. For debts originating before May 18, 2025, Discover Bank's Delaware main office is the relevant location for the borrowing-statute analysis under King. For debts originating after the merger, verify the current issuing entity on your account statements.

Barclays Bank Delaware (Wilmington, DE) — Delaware state bank, issued under many co-branded names including AAdvantage Aviator and JetBlue. Delaware three-year SOL applies.

Comenity Bank / Bread Financial (Wilmington, DE) — Delaware commercial bank, issued under many retail store-brand names. Delaware three-year SOL applies.

TD Bank USA, N.A. (Wilmington, DE) — nationally chartered by the OCC with main office in Wilmington, Delaware. Delaware three-year SOL applies via CPLR § 202 under the King framework.

Virginia main-office banks — Virginia's three-year SOL on open accounts (Va. Code § 8.01-246(4), law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.01/chapter4/section8.01-246/) applies via CPLR § 202:

Capital One, N.A. (McLean, VA) — nationally chartered with main office in Virginia. Virginia's three-year SOL on open accounts applies.

Banks where the foreign SOL is longer than New York's, so New York's three-year CPLR § 214-i period applies as the shorter one:

Citibank, N.A. (Sioux Falls, SD) — nationally chartered with main office in South Dakota. South Dakota's SOL on contract claims is six years under S.D. Codified Laws § 15-2-13(1). Six years is longer than three years, so CPLR § 202 imports New York's three-year period. The borrowing statute doesn't help with Citibank accounts.

Synchrony Bank (Draper, UT) — federally chartered savings association with main office in Utah. Utah's SOL on written contracts is six years under Utah Code § 78B-2-309. New York's three-year period applies.

American Express National Bank (Salt Lake City, UT) — nationally chartered with main office in Utah. Same Utah six-year result. New York's three-year CPLR § 214-i period governs.

Chase Bank USA, N.A. / JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. — Chase's credit card operations went through corporate restructuring in the 2018-2025 period. Verify the issuing entity on your account statements before applying the borrowing statute to any Chase account. The applicable main-office state depends on the specific issuing entity currently servicing the account.

Date of last payment is the practical starting point. The breach — the event that starts the SOL clock — occurs when you miss a required payment that you don't subsequently cure. Your date of last payment is the reference point: the next payment you missed after that is the actionable breach.

Date of charge-off: a misconception. Charge-off is an accounting and regulatory event, typically required after 180 days of non-payment under federal bank regulatory rules. It does not start the New York SOL clock. The breach occurred earlier, at the missed payment. Using the charge-off date would give the plaintiff a longer window to sue; New York courts measure from the breach.

Date the debt was sold to a debt buyer: irrelevant. Midland Funding or Portfolio Recovery Associates buying the account at a later date does not extend or reset the SOL. Under PRA v. King, a debt buyer stands in the shoes of the original creditor — including being bound by the same SOL that would have applied to the original creditor.

Practical: when you receive a complaint from Midland or PRA in New York, find your date of last payment on the underlying account through original-creditor statements or your own bank records. Compare that date to the date the complaint was filed. If the gap exceeds the applicable SOL, the claim is presumptively time-barred.

New York's written-acknowledgment doctrine under N.Y. General Obligations Law § 17-101 provides: "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 a case out of the operation of the provisions of limitations of time for commencing actions." A written, signed acknowledgment of an existing debt can restart the SOL clock.

Partial payments without a written, signed acknowledgment are more ambiguous under New York law. The statute's writing requirement creates more protection for New York consumers than the general common-law rule in some other states. But the exact application depends on the specific facts, and courts have found implicit acknowledgment in various written communications.

Practical guidance: if you have a potentially time-barred credit card debt, do not make any payment to the original creditor or to a debt buyer without consulting an attorney. The risk that a payment — combined with written or electronic correspondence — constitutes an acknowledgment that revives the debt is real. Debt buyers and collection agencies sometimes frame partial payments as a step toward resolution. Understanding the SOL consequences before making any payment is essential.

Filing a lawsuit to collect a time-barred debt is a violation of federal and New York state law.

Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e: prohibits false or misleading representations in connection with debt collection. Filing on a time-barred debt implies that the debt is legally enforceable — which is false when the SOL has run. Federal courts have consistently held that filing time-barred collection lawsuits violates this provision.

Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692f: prohibits unfair or unconscionable collection practices. Courts have found that filing on time-barred debt qualifies under this provision as well.

New York General Business Law § 349: prohibits deceptive business practices. Provides statutory damages of up to $50 per violation plus treble damages up to $1,000 per violation in the court's discretion, plus attorney's fees.

The CFPB has documented both Midland Funding's and Portfolio Recovery Associates' practices of filing on time-barred debt. The 2020 CFPB action against Encore Capital Group (Midland's parent) specifically found that Encore filed approximately 100 time-barred lawsuits in violation of its 2015 consent order, resulting in a $15 million civil penalty. The press release is at consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-settles-lawsuit-debt-collectors-and-debt-buyers-encore-capital-group-midland-funding-midland-credit-management-and-asset-acceptance-capital-corp/. The 2023 CFPB action against PRA documented the same practice: consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-orders-portfolio-recovery-associates-to-pay-more-than-24-million-illegal-debt-collection-practices-reporting-violations/.

Practical implication: if Midland or PRA filed a New York lawsuit on a time-barred debt, the complaint itself is the basis for FDCPA counterclaims and a NY GBL § 349 counterclaim. The combined counterclaim exposure often exceeds the face value of the original claim — which is why a properly filed Answer with counterclaims frequently produces a settlement offer or voluntary dismissal.

CPLR § 3018(b) requires that affirmative defenses "which if not pleaded would be likely to take the adverse party by surprise" be raised in the Answer. Statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded or it is waived — you cannot raise it for the first time later in the litigation.

Your Answer deadline: under CPLR § 3012(a), you generally have 20 days after personal service to respond, or 30 days if served by substituted service or other means. File on time — missing the deadline allows the plaintiff to seek a default judgment without any hearing.

In the affirmative defenses section of your Answer, plead the three-year New York default: "Plaintiff's claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Under CPLR § 214-i, New York's statute of limitations on actions to collect consumer credit transactions is three years. Defendant's last payment on the account at issue occurred on or about [date]. Plaintiff filed this action on [complaint filing date], more than three years after that date. Plaintiff's claim is therefore time-barred."

If the original creditor's main office is in another state with a shorter or equal SOL, also plead the borrowing statute: "In the alternative, Plaintiff's claim is also barred under New York's borrowing statute, CPLR § 202. The underlying account was issued by [original bank name], a bank with its main office in [city, state]. Under CPLR § 202, as interpreted by the New York Court of Appeals in Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. King, 14 N.Y.3d 410 (2010), the cause of action accrued in [state], and [state]'s applicable SOL on contract claims is [N] years under [statute citation]. Defendant's last payment occurred more than [N] years before this action was filed."

If the pre-April 2022 transition is relevant, also plead in the alternative under CPLR § 213(2). New York's procedural rules permit alternative affirmative defenses.

Midland Funding LLC and Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC regularly file New York lawsuits on credit card accounts that have been in default for multiple years before the debt buyer's purchase.

For Portfolio Recovery Associates cases in New York: PRA v. King is direct doctrinal authority. The Court of Appeals established that PRA, as a debt buyer, stands in the shoes of the original creditor for CPLR § 202 purposes. PRA cannot credibly argue against the application of King in subsequent New York cases. When PRA sues you on a Discover Bank (pre-May 2025), Barclays, Comenity, or TD Bank account, the Delaware three-year borrowing-statute analysis from King applies directly. When PRA sues on a Capital One account, Virginia's three-year SOL on open accounts applies via the same King framework.

For Midland Funding cases in New York: the King framework applies even though that case involved PRA. The holding that a debt buyer stands in the shoes of the original creditor for CPLR § 202 purposes extends to all assignees, including Midland Funding. Identify the original creditor named in Midland's complaint and apply the main-office-location analysis.

For detailed coverage of authentication, evidence, pleading defenses, and the full CCFA framework applicable to Portfolio Recovery Associates cases in New York, see the companion post at /blog/portfolio-recovery-associates-suing-me-new-york. For the federal CFPB enforcement record against both companies, see /blog/cfpb-encore-midland-portfolio-recovery-enforcement.

New York's credit card debt SOL framework is now one of the shortest in the country, and the layered analysis is more favorable to defendants than in most states:

The current default: three years under CPLR § 214-i for consumer credit transactions, effective April 7, 2022. Many debt-buyer lawsuits filed today in New York are on accounts that defaulted in 2021-2023 — exactly the window where the three-year period may have already run or will run shortly.

The borrowing statute: CPLR § 202 as interpreted in PRA v. King imports the foreign bank's home-state SOL when it is shorter than New York's. For pre-April 2022 debts from Delaware or Virginia-headquartered banks, the borrowing statute reduced the old six-year period to three years — creating time-bar arguments for accounts where the debt was more than three years old but less than six years old when the lawsuit was filed.

The regulatory pattern: the CFPB documented Midland's and PRA's practices of filing on time-barred debt and imposed more than $118 million in combined penalties across four enforcement actions against the two companies.

The state-law remedy: FDCPA + NY GBL § 349 counterclaims with statutory damages and attorney fees when the plaintiff filed on a time-barred debt.

Practical sequence: (1) identify the original creditor in the complaint; (2) find your last payment date; (3) determine the applicable SOL — three years under CPLR § 214-i or the borrowing statute via CPLR § 202 based on the bank's main-office state; (4) compare your last payment date to the complaint filing date; (5) if the gap exceeds the applicable SOL, plead the defense in your Answer and consider FDCPA + NY GBL § 349 counterclaims.

I'm John DiSalle. In April 2026, I won my own debt-buyer case pro se in Eau Claire County, Wisconsin — Plaza Services LLC v. DiSalle, Case No. 2025SC000885, dismissed April 9, 2026. New York's credit card debt SOL framework is one of the most defendant-favorable in the country — three years under CPLR § 214-i, potentially the same under CPLR § 202's borrowing statute for many major issuers, and the Court of Appeals' decision in Portfolio Recovery Associates v. King makes the borrowing-statute analysis directly applicable to debt-buyer cases. Most aggregator articles still cite the old six-year figure from before the CCFA. I built Answered to give pro se New York defendants the verified citation framework for the full SOL defense — including the correct doctrinal framing of PRA v. King as a borrowing-statute case, not a foundation or standing case.

For the full story, visit /about/john-disalle.

File your Answer before the deadline. Under CPLR § 3012(a), you generally have 20 days after personal service (30 days after substituted or other service) to file your Answer. Missing that deadline allows the plaintiff to seek a default judgment without a hearing on the merits.

In the affirmative defenses section of your Answer, plead the SOL defense. Cite CPLR § 214-i (three-year consumer credit SOL) as the primary defense. If the original creditor's main office is in Delaware or Virginia, also cite CPLR § 202 and Portfolio Recovery Associates v. King, 14 N.Y.3d 410 (2010) for the borrowing-statute analysis. If the pre-April 2022 transition is relevant, plead both CPLR § 214-i and CPLR § 213(2) as alternative defenses.

Identify the original creditor named in the complaint. For Delaware main-office banks (Discover Bank pre-May 2025 merger, Barclays, Comenity, TD Bank USA): Delaware's three-year SOL applies via CPLR § 202. For Capital One (Virginia main office): Virginia's three-year SOL on open accounts applies. For Citibank (South Dakota), Synchrony (Utah), or American Express National Bank (Utah): New York's own three-year CPLR § 214-i period governs.

Find your last payment date through original-creditor statements or your own bank records. Compare to the complaint filing date. If the gap exceeds the applicable SOL, the claim is presumptively time-barred.

Consider a counterclaim under FDCPA (15 U.S.C. § 1692k) and NY GBL § 349 if Midland or PRA filed on a time-barred debt. The combined damages plus attorney fees often exceed the original claim amount.

For the Answered New York state defense framework, visit /sued-for-debt/new-york. For the debt buyer directory, visit /debt-buyers.