Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
L.D. BURTON, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT, v. MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST COMPANY, DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT. L.D. BURTON, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT PRO SE.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action in September 2011 to recover monies that he had on deposit with defendant, alleging that the monies were wrongfully distributed by defendant to his former legal guardian. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was time-barred, and we conclude that Supreme Court properly granted the motion. “As a general principle, the statute of limitations begins to run when a cause of action accrues (see CPLR 203[a] ), that is, ‘when all of the facts necessary to the cause of action have occurred so that the party would be entitled to obtain relief in court’ “ (Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc. v American Zurich Ins. Co., 18 NY3d 765, 770, quoting Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Nelson, 67 N.Y.2d 169, 175). Contrary to plaintiff's contention, his cause of action accrued, at the latest, on December 28, 2000, when his former legal guardian closed the account (see Gonzalez v. Anchor Bank Corp., 245 A.D.2d 132, 132; see generally Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc., 18 NY3d at 770). Plaintiff's action, which is governed by a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[2]; Gonzalez, 245 A.D.2d at 132–133; see also Hechter v. New York Life Ins. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 34, 39–40) is therefore untimely. Plaintiff's additional contention based on UCC 4–406 is raised for the first time on appeal and is therefore not properly before us (see generally Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984, 985).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 12–01669
Decided: December 27, 2013
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)