It is well settled that the parties may contractually agree to shorten the applicable period of limitations (CPLR 201; Kassner Co. v. City of New York, 46 N.Y.2d 544), "[a]bsent proof that the contract is one of adhesion or the product of overreaching, or that [the] altered period is unreasonably short" (Wayne Drilling Blasting v. Felix Indus., 129 A.D.2d 633, 634). Six-month periods of limitation, identical to that here, have been upheld (see, Kassner Co. v. City of New York, supra; Parisi Sons v. Board of Educ., 32 A.D.2d 909, affd 26 N.Y.2d 810), and plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the unreasonableness of the limitations period in this case. There is also no evidence of wrongful or negligent conduct which induced plaintiff to forego its suit sufficient to invoke the doctrine of estoppel (see, Bender v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 38 N.Y.2d 662). At best the record demonstrates a series of demands by plaintiff for information to which the City responded without any offer of settlement or compromise. We find plaintiff's remaining claim to be without merit.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.