Hyperlawhypertext legal database L.D. Burton v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. 112 A.D.3d 1362

← Cases

L.D. Burton v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co.

112 A.D.3d 1362 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2013-12-27 English

Contents

Majority

p. 1362
L.D. Burton, Appellant, v Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, Respondent.
[977 NYS2d 534]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John F. O’Donnell, J.), entered August 1, 2012. The order granted the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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 [2012], quoting Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Nelson, 67 NY2d 169 , 175 [1986]). Contrary to plaintiffs 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.,

p. 1363
245 AD2d 132 , 132 [1997]; see generally Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc., 18 NY3d at 770 ). Plaintiffs action, which is governed by a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213 [2]; Gonzalez, 245 AD2d at 132-133 ; see also Hechter v New York Life Ins. Co., 46 NY2d 34 , 39-40 [1978]) is therefore untimely. Plaintiffs 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 AD2d 984 , 985 [1994]). Present — Centra, J.P, Peradotto, Garni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.

Cases cited