|
p0634 REVIEW DENIED After finding an agreement selecting New York law enforceable, a court should have applied New York's borrowing statute, which requires an action to be brought within the limitations periods established by the laws of New York and the state where the cause of action accrued, and should have applied the California statute, which provided for a shorter time than the New York statute.CitationHUGHES ELECTRONICS v CITIBANK (Borrowing Statute) 120 CA4 251 [See: CCP 340; NY CPLR 202, 214(2); Hambrecht v American Medical 38 CA4 1532]
|
|
