Under New York choice of law principles, how is a time limit treated when it is substantive in another state but procedural in New York?

• A. If a time limit is substantive in another state, NY should apply that law; if procedural, NY should apply NY's rule
• B. If a time limit is substantive in another state, NY should apply NY's rule; if procedural, NY should apply the foreign rule
• C. Substantive and procedural time limits are both governed by NY law
• D. The court always applies the public policy rule

Answer: (A)

The key idea is how New York courts treat time limits by looking at how the foreign state characterizes them. If the foreign state treats a time limit as substantive—affecting the existence or scope of the right to sue—then that substantive law governs for purposes of determining whether a claim is timely. If the foreign state treats the same time limit as procedural, then New York’s own procedural rule governs.

So when a time limit is substantive in another state but procedural in New York, the court should apply the foreign state’s substantive rule. Only if the time limit were procedural in the foreign state would New York’s procedural rule apply. This is why applying the foreign state’s substantive limit in this scenario is correct, and why the other approach—switching based on where a limit is labeled as procedural in New York or always using NY law—would not fit how conflicts-of-law analysis is usually carried out. The public policy approach isn’t the standard method for these determinations.