Opinion
April 11, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.).
Plaintiff's causes of action for conversion and replevin accrued in 1978, when, in response to plaintiff's letters asserting co-ownership of the subject chattel, the alleged co-owner denied that plaintiff had any ownership interest in the chattel ( Del Piccolo v. Newburger, 9 N.Y.S.2d 512). The claims are therefore barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. Defendant coowner's claimed absence from the State cannot effect a toll absent proof, which it is plaintiff's burden to adduce ( see, Massie v. Crawford, 78 N.Y.2d 516, 519), that jurisdiction could not be obtained through extraterritorial service of process (CPLR 207). And, the action would be time-barred even if a foreign law's Statute of Limitations were applicable, since, to be applicable, CPLR 202, the borrowing statute, requires that it be shorter than New York's Statute of Limitations ( United States Fid. Guar. Co. v. Smith Co., 46 N.Y.2d 498, 504).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.