98 N.Y.2d 249 (2002)
r
r
The statute of limitations applies to the State in actions to recover personal property, but the cause of action accrues when the defendant exercises ownership over the property to the exclusion of the State’s rights.
r
r
Summary
r
The State of New York sued the Seventh Regiment Fund, Inc., alleging wrongful possession of historic artifacts. The Fund argued the suit was time-barred. The State claimed immunity from the statute of limitations and timely suit after accrual. The Court of Appeals rejected the State’s immunity claim, holding the statute of limitations applies to the State in actions to recover personal property. However, the Court found unresolved factual issues regarding when the State’s cause of action accrued, specifically when the Fund exercised ownership over the memorabilia to the exclusion of the State’s rights, precluding summary judgment for the Fund.
r
r
Facts
r
The 107th Support Group, successor to the Seventh Regiment, accumulated historic artifacts. The Seventh Regiment Fund, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation, was formed in 1909 to promote the Regiment’s interests. In 1952, the Regiment’s officers authorized the sale of the memorabilia to the Fund for one dollar. The Fund claimed this was to protect the memorabilia during the Korean War. A bill of sale was executed, but no copies were sent to the Comptroller or Adjutant General. In 1996, the State brought an action against the Fund, seeking a declaration of ownership of the memorabilia.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The State initially brought multiple causes of action. The claim was narrowed to whether the Regiment held the memorabilia in trust for the State in 1952, precluding valid transfer. The Appellate Division determined the Regiment held objects acquired by inter vivos gift in trust for the State. The Fund then sought summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, assuming the cause of action accrued in 1952. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, denying the Fund’s motion for summary judgment.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether the statute of limitations is a defense when the State sues in its sovereign capacity to recover goods held in trust for the People of New York.
r
2. When did the State’s cause of action for conversion accrue against the Fund?
r
r
Holding
r
1. No, because the statutory language clearly subjects the State to the statute of limitations in actions to recover personal property.
r
2. The cause of action accrues when the Fund exercised ownership over the memorabilia to the exclusion of the State’s rights, a determination requiring further factual findings on remand.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court rejected the State’s argument for immunity from the statute of limitations, noting the legislature’s clear intent to subject the State to limitations periods for actions involving personal property. The Court emphasized the explicit statutory rule that limitations apply to the State and private persons alike. The Court distinguished adverse possession cases cited by the State, finding they did not support a blanket exemption from the statute of limitations for the State when suing