Under the borrowing statute, if the plaintiff was a resident of New York when the out-of-state claim arose, which SOL governs?

• A. New York's SOL
• B. The shorter SOL of the two states
• C. The longer SOL of the other state
• D. The SOL of the state where accrual occurred

Answer: (A)

The borrowing statute focuses on which state's time limits apply when a claim arose outside New York. The key twist is residency: if the plaintiff was a New York resident when the out-of-state claim arose, New York’s statute of limitations governs. This prevents a New York resident from being dragged into a longer foreign period and keeps the case under New York timing rules.

In this scenario, the plaintiff was a New York resident at the time the claim arose, so New York’s statute of limitations applies. If the plaintiff hadn’t been a New York resident, the court would generally apply the shorter of the two states’ limitations periods, which is the purpose of the borrowing rule.

Why the other possibilities don’t fit here: applying the foreign state’s longer period wouldn’t follow the residency-based exception, and applying the place of accrual would ignore the borrowing statute’s mechanism, which pairs with the residency rule to determine the governing SOL.