The following excerpt is from Commissioner of Welfare of City of New York v. Jones, 343 N.Y.S.2d 661, 73 Misc.2d 1014 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1973):
Where a sovereign entity is not named in a limitations statute, it can bring suit after the limitations period has run. Matter of Smathers, 249 App.Div. 523, 293 N.Y.S. 314 (2d Dept. 1937). Therefore, the recognized difference in status between a sovereign entity, as protector of funds for the general welfare, and a private litigant, as suing solely in his or her individual capacity, plainly justifies differences in treatment. See also Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 281, 81 S.Ct. 534, 5 L.Ed.2d 551 (1961); United States v. Thompson, 98 U.S. 486, 489, 25 L.Ed. 194 (1878). If the sovereign could constitutionally be totally exempted from limitations in the absence of being named in the statute, it clearly can be held to a more liberal statutory limitations period.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.