| NY | Jun 28, 1983
Lead Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The loan contract having been made by defendant in New York while a resident of New York, jurisdiction over him was obtainable by service outside the State and plaintiff had knowledge of his address well before the Statute of Limitations ran. Although the Congress has seen fit to limit the right of a student borrower to a discharge in bankruptcy (US Code, tit 11, § 523, subd [a], par [8]; see State of New York v Wilkes, 41 NY2d 655), neither the Congress nor our State Legislature has excluded student loan contracts from the ambit of the six-year period of limitations applicable to contracts (CPLR 213).
The contract provision requiring that defendant report annually to the lending institution to renew or extend his obligation does not help plaintiff because it too was breached more than six years ago. Furthermore, there
Finally, the suggestion that the total number (168,892) and amount ($343,135,032) of defaulted student loans is a reason for treating such loans differently than other contracts is more properly addressed to the Legislature.
Concurrence Opinion
(concurring). I concur and note that it is within the power of the Legislature to revive the claim even though it is now barred by limitations (Gallewski v Hentz & Co., 301 NY 164; Robinson v Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co., 238 NY 271, app dsmd 271 U.S. 649" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1926-06-07" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/john-lapique-v-the-district-court-of-the-united-states-for-the-southern-district-of-california-100921?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="100921">271 US 649; Electrical Workers v Robbins & Myers, 429 U.S. 229" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1976-12-20" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/international-union-of-electrical-radio--machine-workers-v-robbins--myers-inc-109571?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="109571">429 US 229; Chase Securities Corp. v Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1945-06-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/chase-securities-corp-v-donaldson-104144?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="104144">325 US 304).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons concur; Judge Meyer also concurs in a concurring memorandum in which Judge Jasen also concurs.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.