## Facts

- A Delaware corporation contracted in 1988 to provide consulting services to another Delaware corporation, including assistance with a potential acquisition and corporate planning.
- The consultant demanded more than $9 million in November 1989 for commissions and fees; the company refused to pay.
- In 1995, the consultant sued in federal court in New York for breach of contract and quantum meruit; the case was dismissed in 1996 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because diversity was absent.
- Within months, the consultant filed a substantially similar action in New York state court; the parties agreed the state action would be timely under CPLR 205(a) if the federal action had been timely when filed.
- The defendant moved to dismiss under CPLR 202 (borrowing statute), arguing the claims accrued outside New York and were untimely under the applicable out-of-state limitations periods.

## Issues

1. For CPLR 202 purposes, where does a nonresident’s contract/quantum meruit claim for purely economic loss “accrue”: in New York where contract-related events occurred, or at the plaintiff’s residence where the economic impact is felt?
2. If accrual is at the plaintiff’s residence, were the claims time-barred under the relevant foreign limitations periods, requiring dismissal in New York under CPLR 202?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal.
- For CPLR 202, a nonresident’s claim seeking purely economic damages accrues where the plaintiff resides and sustains the economic impact of the loss.
- Applying that rule, the claims accrued outside New York (at the plaintiff’s residence), and were time-barred under the potentially applicable foreign statutes of limitations.
- Because CPLR 202 requires timeliness under both New York’s limitations period and that of the place of accrual, the New York action was untimely.

## Legal Principles

- CPLR 202 requires a nonresident suing in New York on a cause of action accruing outside New York to satisfy the shorter of (i) New York’s limitations period and (ii) the limitations period of the jurisdiction where the claim accrued.
- A cause of action “accrues” for CPLR 202 purposes where the injury is sustained; when the alleged injury is purely economic, the place of injury is generally the plaintiff’s residence.
- The location of negotiation, performance, or breach does not control accrual for CPLR 202 in purely economic-loss contract cases.
- CPLR 202’s accrual analysis is distinct from substantive choice-of-law methods that weigh contacts; a residence-based rule supports predictable application and limits forum shopping.

## Conclusion

The court held that, under New York’s borrowing statute, a nonresident’s contract and quantum meruit claims for purely economic loss accrue at the plaintiff’s residence, not where the contract events occurred, and it affirmed dismissal because the action was untimely under the borrowed foreign limitations periods.


Global Fin. Corp. v. Triarc Corp., 93 N.Y.2d 525, 715 N.E.2d 482 (N.Y. 1999)